Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND).

Mr. COUPER: 1.
asked the Minister If Pensions what was the total amount expended in administration and pensions during the last financial year in Scotland; and what proportion it bears to the total expenditure in the United Kingdom?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): It is estimated that the total costs of pensions and other benefits for Scotland for the year 1924–1925 was £6,220,000, representing nearly 10 per cent. of the total expenditure on pensions and other benefits in the United Kingdom. I regret that it would not be possible to answer the first part of the question without an analysis, which I fear would be impracticable, of the common services of the Ministry and its Parliamentary and general administrative work.

NURSES (AWARDS).

Miss WILKINSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many nurses have received pensions as a result of disabilities arising from war service; and how many have been refused such pensions?

Major TRYON: Up to the end of February last, awards had been made to 2,542 nurses. The records of the Ministry do not enable me to give the information asked for in the latter part of the question.

Miss WILKINSON: Are not all applications kept and are they not available for purposes of record?

Major TRYON: Of course we have records of the nurses who are in receipt of pension, but we have not a record of every nurse who may have applied. I have no reason to suppose nurses are not receiving as favourable consideration as any other class of applicant.

EX-PRIVATE BUTLER, DONCASTER.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that ex-Private George Butler, of No. 3, Right Square, Stainforth, near Doncaster, who enlisted in 1914 when thoroughly fit, was wounded in 1916, and later was sent to Italy where he served throughout the remainder of the war, although still suffering from his injuries, is quite unable to follow his employment, and yet he is only receiving a pension of 8s. 6d. per week, which terminates after 104 weeks; and will he inquire into this case, and the full medical history, with a view to preventing a permanent injustice

Major TRYON: As has already been explained to the hon. Member, no claim in respect of disablement was made in this case until July, 1925. As a result of medical examination the only wound which was found to be causing him even slight disablement was an injury to the hand, in respect of which the award referred to was made. I would point out that the man has a right of appeal at any time in respect of this decision until July next if he is dissatisfied with the award.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local medical officer declared that his present disabilities are entirely due to injuries he received during War service, and will he not re-examine the whole case in the light of that information?

Major TRYON: I do not think the attributability is in dispute, because he is receiving compensation, but if there are any facts which have not yet been brought to the notice of the Ministry I shall be happy to receive them from the hon. Member.

LIFE PENSIONS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of life pensions in issue on 24th February, 1926, to officers, nurses, and other ranks, respectively, where the assessment was 20 per cent., 30 per cent., 40 per cent.,
50 per cent., 60 per cent., 70 per cent., 80 per cent., 96 per cent., and 100 per cent.; and what proportion was due to wound or injury and what proportion was due to disease?

The approximate numbers of Life Pensions in payment to Officers, Nurses and Other Ranks, at the end of February, 1926, were as follow:—


—
100 per cent.
90 per cent.
80 per cent.
70 per cent.
60 percent.
50 per cent.
40 per cent.
30 per cent.
20 percent.
Total.


Officers
…
1,220
50
425
575
850
1,550
1,300
2,300
4,150
12,420


Nurses
…
56
1
1
2
7
13
10
32
63
185


Other Ranks

16,200
2,050
6,500
13,000
20,700
32,100
28,400
50,350
96,600
265,900

APPEALS (TIME LIMIT).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that Pensions Appeal Tribunals have no jurisdiction to deal with appeals not entered within the statutory time limit, he will say how such appeals, if sanctioned by the Ministry, are disposed of?

Major TRYON: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the answer regarding the law on this point given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Comptroller of the Household on the 11th instant, except to point out that my Department has no authority to sanction appeals, as suggested by the hon. Member, but only to remit them to the Tribunal when, notwithstanding that the appeal must, on the information before the Ministry, be held to be out of time, the man expressly desires that this issue should be determined by the Tribunal. In any case where the issue referred to is raised, the Tribunal decide in accordance with the law and the facts of the case.

Mr. KENNEDY: What purpose is served by the Ministry in sanctioning appeals to the Appeal Tribunal if the Minister knows that the tribunal has no jurisdiction? Further, knowing that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over such

Major TRYON: As the information required is very detailed, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

cases, could not the Minister devise some means of having such cases considered outside the tribunal?

Major TRYON: It is clearly the duty of the Ministry to inform the tribunal whether the appeal is or is not out of time. Any question of altering the final award can only be dealt with under the system of correction of errors which has been adopted by this and previous Governments.

Mr. KENNEDY: Why should cases be sent to a tribunal which has no jurisdiction over such cases?

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact of an appeal being out of time a good reason for delay?

Major TRYON: It is open to any appellant whose appeal is alleged not to have been lodged within the statutory time to go before the tribunal on the issue whether he has in fact complied with the-statutory requirements and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when an appeal is heard and they understand from the statement of the Ministry official that it is out of time, they decline to take any evidence as to the ground why the man did not appeal within time?

Major TRYON: The procedure of the tribunals is outside my Department.

Mr. HAYES: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that injustice is done by the existing law, will he cause an Amendment of the law to be put before the House?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared to suggest any wider alteration of this procedure, which I think was rightly continued by the late Government and which we are also continuing.

CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to announce the names and qualifications of members of his Central Advisory Committee, as reconstituted 7

Major TRYON: The Committee will consist of nine persons (including three ladies) representing War Pensions Committees all of whom have had long and active experience of War Pensions work, while four have, in addition, special knowledge of work in connection with the welfare and education of children; eight representatives of ex-service officers and men; and four representatives of the official staff of the Ministry, central and local. I will cause the names and qualifications in detail to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Is that an increase or a decrease of those appointed to look after the interests of the widows and orphans?

Major TRYON: I am glad to be able to assure the House that, under the new system, there are three women on the Committee, which I think will be a great advantage to the Committee in dealing with problems affecting women and children. The scheme initiated by the late Government provided no representation of women at all.

Following are the particulars of the members of the Central Advisory Committee:

I. NON-OFFICIAL MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS.

L. Best, Esquire, Chairman of Children's Sub-Committee of the Birmingham War Pensions Committee; Headmaster of Grove Lane Secondary School, Birmingham.

Alderman D. Davison. Esquire, O.B.E., J.P., Chairman of War Pensions Committee and of General Purposes Sub-Committee, Norwich: Vice-Chairman of County Education Committee; Chairman of Cromer Urban District Council: Vice-Chairman of Finance Committee, Norfolk County Council; Chairman of Public Health Committee, Norfolk County Council; a Governor of Gresham School, Holt.

Mrs. A. Holtby, Chairman of Children's Sub-Committee of Hull War Pensions Committee; Member of East Riding County Council.

Alderman Stamford Hutton, Esquire. M.B.E., J.P., Chairman of War Pensions Committee, Gloucestershire Member of Gloucestershire County Council.

Miss E. H. Kelly, C.B.E., J.P., Chairman of Children's Sub-Committee, Portsmouth War Pensions Committee; J.P. (Children's Court); Member of Special Grants Committee; Honorary Secretary, Children's Services Home, Southsea; Honorary Secretary, Portsmouth Branch of Navy League: Member of Local Employment Committee, Ministry of Labour.

T. W. H. McDougal, Esquire, J.P., Chairman of Lothians War Pensions Committee; Member of Midlothian County Council and Education Authority.

A. Hume Nichol], Esquire, C.B.E., Chairman of Lewisham War Pensions Committee and Vice-Chairman of Children's Sub-Committee; ex-Mayor of Borough of Lewisham.

Miss G. J. Trubshaw, 0.B.E., Vice-Chairman of South-West Wales War Pensions Committee and Chairman of General Purposes Sub - Committee; Member of Carmarthenshire County Council and of County Education Committee: Chairman of Juvenile Employment Committee and Local Employment Committee, Ministry of Labour, Llanelly; Trustee of Welsh Troops Fund.

Alderman T. Turnbull, Esquire, C.B.E., D.L., J.P., Chairman of Manchester War Pensions Committee and General Purposes Sub-Committee; Alderman of Manchester City Council and Member of Education Committee.

Representatives of Ex-Service Men.

H. E. Giles, Esquire.

Lieut.-Colonel V. L. Henderson, M.C., M. P.

*Commander F. Paget Hett, R.N.V.R.

Lieut. - Colonel Assheton Pownall, O.B.E., M.P.

Sir Archibald Sinclair, Bart., C.M.G., M.P.

J. J. Tinker, Esquire, M.P.

*A. G. Webb, Esquire.

*Captain T. Woodhead.

II OFFICIAL, MEMBERS.

Sir George Chrystal, K.C.B. (Permanent Secretary).

Sir Adair Hore, K.B.E., C.B.

E. H. Hodgson, Esquire, C.B., O.B.E.

G, H. Bowler, Esquire (Chief Area Officer, Wolverhampton).

*Appointed on recommendation of British Legion.

WAR SERVICES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many persons are now drawing pensions arising out of service in the late War, including dependants of those who lost their lives or have since died; and what is the estimated decrease in this total number during each of the next three years?

Major TRYON: The number of persons to whom, or in respect of whom, pensions or allowances are in issue from the funds of my Department, is approximately 1,830,000. The rate at which this number will decrease will be determined by the death rate, and re-marriage rate, by the number of children growing beyond the age of dependence, and other factors, counter-balanced by the number of new claims admitted. I regret that it is not possible to estimate with accuracy the figure resulting from such uncertain factors for three years ahead. I may say, however, that the rate of diminution is slowing down. In the financial year 1924–25, as compared with the preceding year, the number of beneficiaries decreased by 12 per cent.; in 1925–26 by 9 per cent., and in 1926–27 it is estimated that there will be a decrease of only 7 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

ACCIDENTS (LONDON).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home. Department how many of the Metropolitan police have been killed in the last 12 months, and how many injured, while on point duty in the London area?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William. Joynson-Hicks): During the 12 months ended 11th March, 1926, no members of the Metropolitan police were killed while engaged on point duty; 67 were injured.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. HAYES: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many of the widows of police pensioners who died before 1st September, 1918, do not come within the general provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and, as they are ineligible for the widows' pension in view of the limiting provision of the Police (Pension) Acts of 1918 and 1921, will he consider the amendment of the present law so that the police widows' pension, which was given as a noncontributory pension, may be payable in respect of the older and more needy class of police pensioners' widows?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that there are many cases of widows of police pensioners whose husbands were outside the National Health Insurance scheme in 1917, and who are now out of benefit either from the police or the national scheme, he will consider the amendment of the present legislation in order to bring in all police widows irrespective of the date of the husband's retirement?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware of the position of the widows in question which, so far as concerns the Act of last Session, is similar to the position of other "existing widows," but I regret that the Government cannot see their way to propose legislation to bring them within the police pension scheme.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Is it not a fact that the position of the widows of the men who were serving on the 1st September and got a pension, is due to that being one of the conditions in the
settlement of the strike on that particular date, and if the attitude of the Home Office is persisted in, does it not mean that the widows of men who did not strike but retired before that date are penalised as compared with the widows of those who did strike?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With great respect, I do not think my hon. Friend is quite right in the conclusion he has drawn. In very difficult pensions questions there must always be a date fixed somewhere. This date was fixed long before I took office, and the Government do not propose to alter it.

Sir J. REMNANT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Is it not a fact that the widows of the men who were serving on that date got pensions because that was one of the conditions of the settlement of the strike on that date?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. Friend had better put a question on the Paper. I do not want to make a definite answer on that point without reference to the papers.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in considering this question that by the Regulations of the service the husbands, when alive in the service, were debarred from making any provision outside the provisions of the police Regulations, for their widows, and that the pension was a non-contributory one, and they gave equal service for that pension with those who came in after 1919?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question as the one on the Paper.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (POLICE PROTECTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether any Members of this House, other than members of His Majesty's Government, receive special police protection at the present time; and, if so, in how many cases is this protection given?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir; in two cases.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX)

Brigadier - General CHARTERIS: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to ensure that British nationals who change their domicile to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, and who would be subject to Super-tax if domiciled in England, shall continue to pay Super-tax and Income Tax for a period of 15 years after change of domicile?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This question is under consideration.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If you hunt these people, will they not just go further afield?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great European country has recently passed a law that anyone of its nationals who injures the country or lowers her prestige is declared an outlaw, and does he not think that an admirable arrangement?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps I may take refuge in the well-known formula that "all relevant considerations will be taken into account."

CIGARETTES AND MATCHES (SALE RESTRICTIONS).

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that cigarettes and matches cannot be sold in railway buffets after 8 p.m., but yet can be obtained through the penny-in-the-slot machines on railway platforms; and whether he will take steps to remove the restriction on the sale of matches and cigarettes in railway buffets?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affimative—subject to an exception for tobacco supplied at a meal for immediate consumption. As regards the second, the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend would involve an amendment of the Shops (Early Closing) Acts, and all I can promise is that it will be noted for consideration when any amending legislation is undertaken.

Sir G. WHELER: Is it not time these petty restrictions were removed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said it would involve an amendment of the Shops Early Closing Act. There are a good many points which have been put to me from both sides of the House in regard to the Act, and I have said the Government are not prepared to amend the Act without a very full inquiry. We are too busy to do it this year.

captain ARTHUR EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to make recommendations to him?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that is the course I shall ultimately adopt.

colonel WOODCOCK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think a number of these conditions quite absurd? You have to get a- meal before you can get an ounce of tobacco.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Those arc questions of relativity.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not time all this War legislation was scrapped? Is he not aware that, ostensibly passed to help shop assistants, it really only helps the big store and the multiple shop against the small man?

Mr. ALBERY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the Government can really take useful action without the necessity for an Inquiry?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the Government are not averse from taking action where it is convinced that action is desirable in the interests of the community as a whole. I have not yet had sufficient evidence that there is, on the whole, a demand for the abolition of these restrictions.

TAXICAB FARES (LONDON).

Sir FRANK MEYER: 15.
asked the Horse Secretary whether he has decided to take any action with the object of reducing taximeter cab fares in the Metropolitan area; and whether it is his intention to sanction the licensing of two-seater cabs?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been reached with regard to the reduction or otherwise of the fares of taximeter cabs in London; whether
any decision has been reached with regard to the introduction of two-seater taximeter cabs in London; and, if it has been decided to introduce these cabs, will there be any addition to the present numbers or will the total number of cabs plying for hire remain the same?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If—as I gather—the taxicab trade is not prepared to agree to a reduction of fares—and I am awaiting their final answer—I propose to authorise the immediate licensing of two-seater cabs at a reduced tariff. There is no power to make the introduction of two-seater cabs dependent upon the withdrawal of an equivalent number of existing cabs.

Sir F. MEYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in dealing with this question, that any reductions which are made merely in short distance fares—any distance under a mile—will not satisfy the demands of the public?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to have all the relevant considerations in my mind before I deal with a very difficult subject.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman he prepared to receive a deputation from the owners of cabs, if they are desirous of putting further facts before him?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Member asks me to receive a deputation, I shall he glad to do so.

Mr. BRIANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Traffic Board with respect to the introduction of a large number of extra vehicles on our already overcrowded roads?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; but I have ascertained from my advisers that within the next few years, there will be certainly 50,000 more vehicles on the streets of London, and I should think that the addition of 500 taxi-cabs would make no material difference.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question—whether there will be any addition to the present numbers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have answered that part of the question.

Mr. R. MORRISON: rose. —

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the question.

BOGUS COMPANIES.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a number of American sellers of shares who have landed in this country with the object of inducing investors to purchase shares of doubtful companies; and whether he will consider dealing with these visitors as undesirable aliens?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer my hon. and gallant friend to the answer given yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for Mile End.

colonel WOODCOCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the publicity given to these cases and the fact that people are suffering, and can he not use his influence to deport these American share pushers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps I had better read the answer which the Under-Secretary gave yesterday: "This matter is under consideration, and it is not desirable for me to make any statement." I have full cognisance of what has appeared in the Press.

Miss WILKINSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these American shares are at least as dangerous as Russian violinists'?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Whether share pushing is an amusement or a musical instrument is not clear. We cannot compare one with the other. I did not deport any Russian violinist merely because he played the violin.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are not these people obtaining money by false pretences and should not they be prosecuted in the ordinary way?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is it not a fact that these American share merchants have registered offices in the City of London, where they still carry on their nefarious business?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said that this matter is under my very careful consideration, in consultation with the Chief of Police, and that I cannot answer without the very fullest inquiry.

CHARS-A-BANC (THROWING COPPERS)

Colonel DAY: 19.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the practice of throwing coppers from chars-a-bane by trippers, with the resulting physical and moral danger to children; and will he take such action as will result in the Metropolitan Police taking steps to check this practice?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware of the dangers of this practice. By-laws prohibiting it have been made by a number of local authorities and allowed by the Home Office. I will circulate a list of the places in the Metropolitan Police area where such by-laws are in force. I am also informed that a by-law for the County of London is under the consideration of the London County Council. The police enforce the by-laws whenever an offence is detected.

colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent case at the Southwark County Court the Judge stated that this pernicious habit should he stopped by the police?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly the same question.

The list promised is as follows:

Counties:
Kent.
Essex.
Surrey.
Middlesex.


Boroughs:
Kingston-upon-Thames.
Croydon.
Richmond (Surrey).
Wimbledon.

MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now had replies from the Dominions with regard to the Resolution passed in this House on the 18th February, 1925, with regard to the nationality of married women; and whether he will inform the House as to their contents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed that no communication on this subject has been received from any of the Dominion Governments since my reply to the hon. Member on the 21st December last.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Seeing that a very considerable time has elapsed, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any hope that he will do what he can to accelerate the reply on this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to the matter. I have already communicated with the Dominions on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

WEST RIDING SCHOOLS

Mr. ROBINSON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received from the education authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire a protest against Memorandum 44; and whether he will say what work on schools and education in the West Riding has been disallowed following the issue of the Memorandum?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second pare, I am not aware that sanction has been refused to any proposal of this authority since the issue of the Memorandum.

TEACHERS RECORDS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education what are the steps which are being taken to have a complete educational record of every teacher in the country for use at Whitehall; what is the estimated initial cost and future annual cost; how many officials and clerks will be employed in compiling and keeping-this record up to date; and whether this information is already obtainable locally?

Lord E. PERCY: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Records of teachers have always been kept by my Department, since they are necessary for the proper administration of the Education Acts and the Teachers' Superannuation Acts. At the present time certain arrangements are being considered for the simplification of these records and a. diminution in the administrative work entailed in their upkeep, both to my Department and the local authorities. These arrangements are not yet sufficiently advanced to
enable me to say in detail what the saving will be, but they will certainly enable reductions to be made in the staff engaged on this work.

REDMIRES SITE, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 26 and 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether any representations have been made to him either by bodies of persons or individuals in Sheffield as to the disposal of the Redmires site; and, if so, whether he can give the names of those who have made the representations;
(2) the uses to which the site at Redmires, Sheffield, and the huts thereon have been put since they were acquired by the education committee; how many children have been in residence and for what periods; whether any Report has been received by the Board as to the benefit or otherwise derived by the children; what was the initial cost and what has been the annual cost to the education committee and to the Board; and on what grounds the Board has ordered the site and buildings to be disposed of?

Lord E. PERCY: With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these two questions together. The purchase of this site was sanctioned in 1921 on the understanding that it would be disposed of if the authority were unable to put it to the use, for which it was intended, within two years. This period was subsequently extended by one year. The authority have not so far been able to develop the site, and a number of the huts have been removed and re-erected elsewhere for use in connection with public elementary schools and special schools in the area. I have recently received representations from the authority (regarding the continued retention of the site), and hope to be able to announce my decision in the matter very shortly.

Mr. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to my last question.

Lord E. PERCY: I think I did. I said in my answer that I have received representations from the authority regarding the continued retention of the site.

Mr. WILSON: Anyone else?

Lord E. PERCY: Not so far as I know.

BLOCK GRANTS.

Captain BOURNE: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his announcement to local education authorities that Circular 1371 should now be regarded as withdrawn affects the policy of the Government in regard to the institution of a system of block grants?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. The Circular proposed to fix block grants for 1926–27, leaving open for consideration the amount of the block grants for subsequent years. When I met representatives of local authorities last December, I told them that if they could effect a sufficient reduction in their estimates for 1926–27, I would consider postponing the introduction of a block grant system for a year, so as to allow time for consultation. Authorities have now revised their estimates on the lines suggested 'by the Board, and this revision, with the further reductions in expenditure which I believe can be made during the year, has enabled me to bring the Board's estimates within what I consider, in the circumstances, to he a reasonable figure. I have, therefore, carried out my part of the understanding reached in December by continuing the present grant system temporarily for the coming financial year, and the Circular thus becomes inoperative. Consultations are proceeding with local authorities in regard to a block grant system for subsequent years, and the Government's policy in this matter remains unchanged.

Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the present system is to he retained for 12 months, and that after that the right hon. Gentleman is using the block grant system?

Lord E. PERCY: That is my hope.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS, IPSWICH.

Mr. VIANT: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Ipswich Education Committee have, as an admitted result of Circular 1371, increased the fees in their secondary schools from £6 to £9 and reduced free places to 25 per cent.; and whether he will now advise the authority to restore its previous policy since he has announced the withdrawal of the Circular.?

Lord E. PERCY: I have received from the authority no intimation that they have decided either to increase the fees or to reduce the percentage of free places.

Mr. VIANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether any authority has increased the fees?

SURREY (CAPITAL, EXPENDITURE).

Miss WILKINSON: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education on what date he received the programme of urgent capital expenditure submitted by the Surrey Education Authority; whether he has sent any reply to the programme: and what reply he has made to the request of the authority that he should receive a deputation?

Lord E. PERCY: The authority's revised estimates and accompanying statement were received in my Department on February 1st and have been the subject of discussion between officers of my Department and the authority, but I have not yet communicated my decision to the authority. I understand that the proposed deputation has been Postponed for the present.

Miss WILKINSON: Dees not the right hon. Gentleman think that these long delays are the inevitable result of the policy of treating each application on its merits

LONDON UNIVERSITY (SITE).

Mr. HARRIS: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Government have come to any conclusion as to the site for the headquarters of the London University: and whether he can make any statement of policy, so that the necessary fun Is may he collected?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am not at the moment in a position to make an announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will make a full statement of the
reductions of the staff of the Board of Education and of the inspectorate which he has made or is intending to make?

Lord E. PERCY: The Board's headquarters staff will be reduced on the 31st of this month by the following posts; seven administrative officers, one staff clerk, 83 temporary clerks, eight shorthand typists and typists, two temporary messengers, two charwomen. Five additional administrative posts, and a number of higher clerical posts not exceeding seven, will be suppressed as opportunity offers. Proposals for the reorganisation of the Board's inspectorate are under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the reductions which will be effected thereby.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give ns a statement as to which Departments he is scrapping?

Lord E. PERCY: I am scrapping no Department. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement then as to the Departments which are being merged in other Departments, and what officials he is dispensing with?

Lord E. PERCY: If the right hon. Gentleman wants an account of the measures taken in the reorganisation of my Department he will doubtless ask for it on the Estimates, and I shall be glad to give it him.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is not the House entitled, now that the action is actually being taken, to know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing with his Department?

Lord E. PERCY: Not at Question Time.

Mr. TREVELYAN: If we are not to have this information at Question Time. if I ask him for a return of some kind, will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give it to the House?

Lord E. PERCY: If the right hon. Gentleman moves for a return, of course I will do my best to supply it.

STATIONERY OFFICE (FOREIGN GOODS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the percentage value of all foreign goods bought for or
by the Stationery Office during the last financial year?

Mr. R. McNEILL: This information is not, available and could be obtained only at the cost of a great deal of labour. The practice of the Stationery Office is to confine purchases of foreign goods to articles which cannot be obtained of British make, such as foreign books and periodicals and certain office machines and parts. A rough estimate of the value of all foreign goods bought for or by the Stationery Office during the last financial year is from one to one and a half per cent. of the total expenditure.

WOOLWICH (CLERICAL STAFFS).

Mr. SNELL: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in connection with the assessing of departmental marks for Southborough examination candidates, a, local conference of representatives of War Office out-stations offices in Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard was held, and that at this conference an agreement was reached that clerical employés in the Department affected should be assessed at only a percentage of the maximum number of marks fixed by the Civil Service Commissioners under this heading; and what steps he proposes to take to remove the handicap?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Tuesday last in answer to his similar question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE,

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered the recent Report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to any of the recommendations which are made in this Report?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have made myself acquainted with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, but I have not yet been able to give them the detailed consideration which they require and I am not,
therefore, at present in a position to make any statement as to the introduction of legislation to give effect to all or any of the recommendations.

WALES (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider setting up a consultative committee for Wales, to correspond with the representative body which has been established in England, in connection with National Health Insurance administration

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am considering whether arrangements may not usefully be made for regular consultation on matters of sufficient importance with persons in Wales familiar with approved societies' work.

Mr. GRENFELL: Cannot the Committee be set up again

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the arrangement I propose will serve the same purpose.

DEATH OF CHRISTOPHER MAUND, WORCESTER.

Colonel DAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the death of Christopher Maund, aged 62, on whom an inquest was held at Worcester on the 6th March, when it was stated that, following his ejection from a house in November last, deceased had lived, together with his sister, in the bushes of a wood; and what steps have been taken as to the welfare of the woman in question?

Mr. TREVELYAN: 36.
asked the Minister of Health who was responsible for having turned out of his house in Worcester Christopher Wyatt, who was found dead in Perry Wood, near Worcester, after some weeks of living exposed to the snow and rain, and who was declared by the coroner to have died of starvation accelerated by exposure; and why, if the house he has been living in was condemned, provision was not made for alternative accommodation for him when he was forced to leave it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, with permission, reply to these questions together, as I understand that they refer to the same man. I have been in com-
munication on the matter with the Worcester Corporation, who inform me that the ejectment of Maund from his house in October last was not due to any action on their part, and that no application for possession of the house came at any time before the City Justices. I understand that the sister of the deceased man is receiving attention in the Poor Law infirmary of the Worcester Union.

REFUSE DUMP, GREENFORD.

Colonel DAY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a refuse dump, several acres in extent, at Greenford, Middlesex, is menacing the health of the inhabitants of this district; and will he take such action as will overcome the danger of infection during the coming summer months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of this dump. Recent inspections showed great improvement in the conditions, and there was no evidence that there was menace to health. I have, however, directed that another inspection shall be made.

colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when these barges arrive at this depot with refuse many dead animals are left on the dump?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If that is so, no doubt it will appear in the report of my inspector.

captain O'CONNOR: Is it not the case that as soon as the hon. and gallant Member has been restricted in the number of questions he can ask he usually manages to introduce an equal number of supplementaries?

EX-SERVICE 'MEN (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. HAYES: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether his inquiries into the case of ex-Private Alfred Tunstall, of 112, Holt Road, Edge Hill, Liverpool, to whom a workhouse admission order was issued by the West Derby (Liverpool) Guardians, have now been completed, and with what result?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a report which has been received in regard to this case.

Mr. HAYES: Is it true that this ex-soldier was offered an order of admission to the workhouse? That is the point.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find all the information he wants in the report.

Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take up the position that local boards of guardians shall not offer workhouse admission to ex-soldiers, as it leaves them no alternative but living on their parents or doing something far more unsatisfactory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I find on looking at the report that the man asked for and received an admission order.

Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an offer of admission to the workhouse to these men by boards of guardians is a fulfilment of the War promises made to them?

Mr. HAYES: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will ascertain from the West Derby (Liverpool) Board of Guardians the number of orders of admission to the workhouse which have beer offered and issued during the last six months to ex-service men, single and married, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

UNEMPLOYMENT (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Health how many persons are in receipt of outdoor relief from the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Guardians who have been disqualified from receiving stare and benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that 19 such persons are in receipt of relief in this union.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of persons who regularly stay the night in casual wards; and how many of these possess unemployment insurance books?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average number of persons who were relieved in casual wards in England and Wales on each of the 52 Friday nights in the 12 months ended February, 1926, was approximately 8,320. Information is not available as to the number of men who stay regularly in casual wards or as to the number who possess unemployment insurance books.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend request the guardians to obtain information as to those who possess unemployment insurance books?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will see what that entails.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 43.
also asked the Minister of Health whether persons seeking relief from the guardians on grounds of unemployment are required to maintain registration at the Unemployment Exchanges?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no regulation on this subject, but it would be proper and usual that boards of guardians who are granting relief on the ground of unemployment should expect the men relieved to endeavour to secure employment through registration at the Employment Exchanges and in other ways which may be open to them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is in fact the practice of some guardians to require those who obtain relief to register?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will have to make inquiries about that.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If an applicant, for relief can prove to the guardians that he is endeavouring to seek work, will he be entitled to unemployment pay?

Mr. W. THORNE: 48.
asked the Minister of Health if lie is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians have asked for permission to pay the rent of several persons who were in receipt of Poor Law relief during the emergency period when relief was administered under the Ministers direction, but who were unable to pay their rent; if he is aware of the following cases of hardship: W. R., wife and one child dependent, rent 4s. 6d., no rent paid during emergency period, and not in receipt of relief since 27th November. 1925; G. M.
and wife, rent 7s., one child earns 10s., rent paid out of child's earnings; W. R. and wife, no dependent children, rent 8s., only income National Health Insurance 8s. 6d., pledged bed-linen to pay rent; J. B. and wife, no dependent children, rent 7s. 9d., only income National Health Insurance 8s. 6d.; C. D., age 39 years, wife and four dependent children, rent 9s. 9d., ineligible, as son earns 16s.; and whether, in view of the circumstances, he will take action in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received from the clerk to the guardians a letter referring to the five cases mentioned in the question. I have already agreed to the guardians exercising a considerable discretion in dealing with arrears of rent accrued during the period in question, and I am afraid that I cannot undertake to go further in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

GOVERNMENT DECISION.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any conclusion has yet been arrived at as to the institution of an Inland Cash-on-Delivery Service?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. The Government, after careful consideration of the whole subject, have decided that these facilities ought to be afforded to the public. Arrangements have accordingly been made for the institution of an Inland Cash-an-Delivery Service as from Monday. 29th March. Details of the operation of this service will be found in an explanatory leaflet which will be available to-day in the Vote Office.

UNSOUND MEAT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. FORREST: 47.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases during each of the last three years in which persons have been convicted for supplying meat which was considered unfit for human consumption?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am unable to give the information desired.

HOP-PICKERS (REVISED BYE-LAWS).

Mr. BRIANT: 49.
asked the Minister of Health if the proposed by-laws regulating the conditions of hop-pickers have now been approved by his Department and the Minister of Agriculture"

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A conference took place last week between representatives of my Department and of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the National Farmers' Union. There are a few points still to settle, but I hope that it will be possible to issue the revised by-laws at an early date.

Mr. BRIANT: Do I understand that these by-laws will be circulated to Members, or may I ask for a copy for myself?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be very pleased to send the hon. Member a copy.

ENCEPHALITIS LETHARGICA.

Mr. BRIANT: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the possible connection between vaccination and encephalitis lethargica, he will give instructions that the record of patients suffering from the above disease shall contain the vaccinal conditions of patients and whether, in view of the urgency of the matter, he will not delay such a step until the Report of the Committee on Vaccination?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough on 12th February, the Committee on Vaccination will doubtless consider the desirability of such records being obtained. That Committee is empowered by its reference to report "from time to time," and there is no reason, therefore, to anticipate delay in the consideration of the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Mr. BRIANT: Is this disease notifiable compulsorily?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not like to answer without notice. I think not.

Mr. BRIANT: If it is not notifiable, will the right hon. Gentleman make it notifiable? It is most important.

TOOTING BEC MENTAL HOSPITAL.

Mr. BRIANT: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if persons can be admitted to Tooting Bec Hospital on paying terms as in ordinary mental hospitals?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Asylums provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the reception of mentally defective persons are available only for the reception of persons chargeable to a Metropolitan board of guardians, or when there is an approved agreement to a provincial board of guardians.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

HOUSES COMPLETED IN 1925.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built with the aid of the subsidy during 1925 in England and Wales, and in Scotland, respectively; the cost of the subsidy during 1925; and the number of houses built without the aid of the subsidy in England and Wales, and in Scotland, during the same period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Complete figures ate not available for the year ended December, 1925, but during the 12 months ended September, 1925, 92,291 houses were completed under the Housing Acts in England arid Wales with State assistance, and 66,735 by private enterprise without subsidy. The annual subsidy in respect of the 92,291 houses referred to amounted to £594,643. The total payments on account of housing subsidy in England and Wales in 1925 were £7,898,530. As regards similar information for Scotland, I would suggest that the hon. Member should address a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 53.
asked the Minister of Health to what extent the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 to 1923, have been taken advantage of during the past five years; what was the rate of interest charged and shared by local authorities on money advanced for the building and purchase of houses and if he will state the reason for increasing the rate of interest this year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with
the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

During the past five years loans amounting to £12,100,515 have been sanctioned by my Department to local authorities for the purpose of advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, and a further £7,477,382 have been sanctioned for the purpose of advances to builders and purchasers of houses, under Section 92 of the Housing Act of 1925.

Since the 1st January, 1923, the London County Council have sanctioned loans under the former Act amounting to £268,630 and made direct advances of £334,370 under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act and of £1,084,890 under Section 92 of the Act of 1925. Under special powers, and in connection with their Municipal Bank, the Birmingham Corporation have advanced £1,039,983 since the 1st January, 1923, for the purchase and building of houses.

The rates of interest approved by my Department for loans by local authorities for this purpose have been as follow:—

Per cent.


July, 1921—June, 1922
6½


June, 1922—December, 1922
6


December, 1922—August, 1923
5½


August, 1923—January, 1926
5


From January, 1926
5¼

As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4th March, 1926, to a question by the hon. Member for Tottenham, N.

RELIEVING OFFICERS (MEMBERSHIP OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Sir F. HALL: 54.
asked the Minister of Health when he hopes to be in a position to communicate to the House his decision with regard to the introduction of legislation designed to make relieving officers ineligible for election on any local body in the area in which they are so employed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the answer that he gave me two or three weeks a-go, when will my right hon. Friend be able to give me a reply? When shall I put the question again?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when I think it will be convenient.

Sir F. HALL: Shall I put it down after Easter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Very well.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

Mr. RYE: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent municipal by-election in the Pall Mall Ward of the City of Westminister in which the unsuccessful candidate only polled eight votes; and whether he will consider the advisability of promoting legislation which will provide for the deposit of a moderate amount in municipal elections, such amount to be forfeited if any candidate polls less than a certain percentage of votes, so that candidatures of a frivolous nature may be discouraged?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. My attention had not been drawn to the election referred to. The introduction of legislation on the lines of the suggestion in the latter part of the question is not practicable at the present time, but the question will be noted for consideration when any amendment of the law is undertaken.

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. HARRIS: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for drawbacks have been lodged in London for goods to be exported containing silk or artificial silk since the 1st January to the latest date available?

Mr. R. McNEILL: The number of claims to drawback lodged in the four Customs and Excise London collections dealing with drawbacks on silk and artificial silk goods amounted to 18,878 from 1st January to 6th March inclusive. I would explain that the areas of these collections extend far beyond the boundaries of the administrative county of London, though the bulk of the drawback claims in question were made by traders resident therein. The hon. Member will realise that the collection of information of this kind imposes a
great deal of extra work on the Revenue officials in the areas concerned, and though I have been able to meet his request in this instance, the general position remains as stated in the reply given to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a similar question on the 3rd December last.

Mr. HARRIS: Do not these 18,000 claims show that a lot of labour is imposed on the traders in London, making it more difficult for them to carry on their business?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a comment on the legislation of last year.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Sir PARK GOFF: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, before recommending a guarantee under the Trades Facilities Act to the Appleby Iron and Steel Company, the advisory committee considered how long it would be before the new plate mills could be used; and whether they expressed the view that by that time the demand for steel plates would be such as to exceed the productive capacity of all existing plants?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the estimated period which it will take for the work to be finished is two years. As regards the second part of the question, it is clearly impossible to say precisely what the demand for steel plates will be in two years' time.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Sir F. HALL: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what are the amounts of the war debts owed to this country by France, Italy, and Belgium, respectively, and how far they have been liquidated; if he will state what are the amounts owed by the same countries, and by Great Britain to the United States of America, and how much has been paid off in each case; and whether, in view of the results to this country of the one-sided arrangements that have been made with regard to the
repayment of war debts, the Government will take steps with a view to the whole position being examined afresh by the Allies, together with America, with the object of coming to an all-round settlement?

—
War Debt to this Country.
Payments made.
War Debt to United States.
Payments made.



£
£
£
£


Great Britain
…
—
—
968,000,000
Principal 14,400,000



Interest 106,300,000



Total 120,700,000


France
…
647,105,700
Nil
800,700,000
Nil (see Note 1).


Italy
…
840,000 (see Note 2)
2,000,000
419,000,000
1,070,000 (see Note 2).


Belgium
…
See Note 3
—
35,345,000
Nil (see Note 3).


NOTE 1.—The Debts of France to Great Britain and the United States shown above excludes Post-War Debt in respect of Surplus War Material.


NOTE 2.—Particulars of the settlement of the Italian Debt to Great Britain are given in Command Paper 2580. The Debt of Italy to the United States has been funded subject to ratification by the United States. The sum of £1,030,000 has been placed on deposit pending ratification. The sum of £40,000 was paid on signing the Agreement.


NOTE 3.—The War Debt of Belgium to Great Britain forms part of the obligations of Germany under Article 232 of the Treaty of Versailles and as between Great Britain and Belgium has been cancelled. (The Post-War Debts of Belgium to Great Britain have been repaid or funded.)


The War and Post-War Debts of Belgium to the United States have also been funded subject to ratification by the United States. The figure given above represents the War (Pre-Armistice) Debt only. So far as is known no cash payment has yet been made in respect of this Debt.

PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES (RETURN).

Sir EVELYN CECIL: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Return on Public Social Services (Total Expenditure under certain Acts of Parliament), ordered by this House last December to be printed, will be available to the public?

Mr. McNEILL: The Return is in an advanced stage of preparation and will be issued before the Easter Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR BEET.

Mr. FORREST: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give the estimated cost of manufacturing one ton of white sugar from beet?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The hon. Member will realise that there must obviously be wide divergencies in the costs of manufacture of the several factories during the early

Mr. McNEILL: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures asked for in the first two parts of the question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Following are the figures:

stages of the industry, and to give an estimate at the present time would only be misleading to all concerned.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will obtain from countries producing sugar the exact amount in each case of direct or indirect. State assistance given to this industry; and whether he will lay a White Paper upon the Table of the House containing the information thus elicited?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member will let me have a list of the principal countries in which he is interested, I will see what can be done to obtain the information he desires.

The Marquess of TITCHFIELD (for Major AINSWORTH): 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of tons of sugar produced in the year 1925–26 at the four factories at Kelham, Cantley, Ely, and Ipswich?

Mr. GUINNESS: 34,027 tons 9 cwt. of sugar were produced at these four factories in 1925–26.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very heavy stocks of sugar in this country this year as compared with last year?

The Marquess of TITCHFIELD (for Major AINSWORTH): 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the number of people who are offered permanent employment on the land by the sugar-beet industry; and the number of weeks in the year that such people would he employed?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no information as to the number of workers offered permanent employment on the cultivation of sugar beet. The work is mainly seasonal, the periods, of maximum employment being generally during May and June for singling and hoeing and from October to December for lifting and topping. The number of weeks over which these operations are spread varies. of course, with the area under the crop on the individual farm.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: Is it not a fact that the necessary labour employed in the cultivation of sugar beet is four times that employed on the corn crop and 20 times that on grass land?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is very probable, but we have not got final statistics.

NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION (POLICY).

Major RUGGLES-BRISE (for Mr. FOOT MITCHELL): 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, for the guidance of Members, he will state definitely what is the policy in regard to agriculture which has been submitted to his Department by the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. GUINNESS: The policy of the National Farmers' Union was submitted to my Department last summer in the form of a printed memorandum, which it would be difficult to summarise within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. I would suggest that my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members who so desire, should apply for copies to the headquarters of the union.

WAGES.

The Marquess of TITCHFIELD (for Mr. FOOT MITCHELL): 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the highest and lowest rates of wages fixed by the Agri-
cultural Wages Board, indicating the area affected in each instance?

Mr. GUINNESS: In view of the varying bases on which the agricultural wages committees have fixed minimum rates of wages, comparisons between the rates in particular areas are apt to be somewhat misleading, but as regards adult male workers the highest weekly rates applicable generally to all classes of workers are 42s. per week of 60 hours, fixed for the eastern area of Lancashire, and 36s. per week of 50 hours fixed by the Glamorgan Committee. The lowest rates for ordinary adult male workers are the rates of 28s. per week of 48 hours in winter (November to February inclusive), fixed by the Norfolk and Suffolk Committees.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman information as to the rates of pay and hours of work of agricultural labourers in various parts of the country; and, if so, will he have if circulated.

Mr. GUINNESS: I shall be, glad to send it to my hon. Friend.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (POLICE).

Miss WILKINSON: 69.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will provide seats for policemen whose duties necessitate their standing about for long periods in the corridors of the House?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the preferable arrangement is for the constables to be relieved from their posts for an interval, and this is arranged when practicable.

Miss WILKINSON: What insuperable difficulty is there to prevent these men sitting down, instead of just standing about in the House?

captain A. EVANS: Will my right hon. Friend consider the providing of chairs for the policemen who control traffic?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have had no intimitaion from the police that they are uncomfortable standing. When standing they are more easily able to dash along and do anything that their duty requires.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policemen on duty at certain hours have solved this problem very well

RUBBER PRODUCTION.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state what are the intentions of the Colonial Office in regard to the further increase of releases of rubber under the Stevenson scheme?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am closely observing the rubber situation, and hope to be able to make a public notification in due course in regard to the rate of the future release of rubber from Ceylon and Malaya.

colonel WOODCOCK: Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of the date? If would be a great deal more satisfactory to the industry if it knew what to expect in the near future.

Mr. AMERY: I hope to do so as early possible.

colonel WOODCOCK: Will that be within a week?

Mr. AMERY: I doubt it.

colonel WOODCOCK: Within two weeks?

Mr. AMERY: More nearly that time.

BRITISH TRADE WITH RUSSIA.

Mr. FORREST: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is expected that the Food Council will commence their investigations into retail meat prices?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Food Council began these investigations in January.

BRITISH TRADE (RUSSIA).

Mr. W. THORNE: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware of the trading relations between the Soviet Union and the United States of America; if he is aware that the trading companies which carry on Soviet-American
trade had a turnover of $103,767,657 in the financial year ending October 1924–25; that the turnover is nearly double that of the previous year, and breaks all records for Russian trade with the United States of America; that of this turnover exports from the United States of America amounted to $87,083,022, and imports from the Soviet Union amounted to $16,679,6,35; that the total of Russian-American trade in 1913 was $46,000,000; and if he can state whether the Government are prepared to help traders and manufacturers in this country in every way possible to extend the trade with the Soviet Union?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been drawn to certain figures relating to trade between the United States and the Soviet Union which are given in a publication issued by the Soviet Trade Delegation, and which I presume are those to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the last part of the question, the Department of Overseas Trade is always ready to afford any information in its power to persons who may approach the Department in regard to trade with the Soviet Union.

Mr. THORNE: Are the Government doing anything to obtain some of this trade, and does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the tremendous headway which America is making with Russian trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The position of the Government is exactly the same as that of the American Government. Both Governments leave their nationals perfectly free to trade with Russia. Neither gives Government credit.

Major-General Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that the Government of America consistently refused to recognise the Soviet Government in any form; and may not that be the reason for this so-called "boom" in American trade with Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe the fact is as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do not know what conclusions of cause and effect are to be drawn from it. As regards the attitudes of the respective Governments towards the giving of credits, their attitudes are identical.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why American
manufacturers are making such tremendous headway in Russia, although both countries decline to recognise the Soviet Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not at Question Time.

BARQUE "BIRKDALE."

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether inquiries have been made respecting the manner in which the barque "Birkdale," which has now arrived in Hull, has been officered and manned on her passage to Hull; what flag she has been flying and what has been her port of registry; whether on arrival at Hull she was flying the British flag; if so, whether, should she retain this flag, the provisions of Section 5 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, will be enforced prior to sailing, in order that the master and chief officer shall be British subjects?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Inquiries have been made regarding the manning of the barque "Birkdale" on her passage from Callao to Hull, and I find that the nationalities of the officers were as stated in an answer given to my hon. Friend on the 7th December. At ports which the vessel entered since leaving Callao certain changes were made in the remainder of the crew, which on arrival at Hull consisted of one British, one Argentine, two Finns, seven Germans, one Italian, one Norwegian, one Peruvian, one Swede and one Swiss. The vessel has been and is still registered at Liverpool, and is consequently entitled to fly the British flag. So long as she remains registered in the United Kingdom she will be subject to Section 5 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, and the provisions of that Section will have to be complied with.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that provided this ship carries a British captain and first officer the rest of the crew may come from Chile or Switzerland or anywhere else, and that the right hon. Gentleman's Department refuses to do anything to prevent this scandal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong.
This ship set out from Callao at a time when there were no British there to go on board, and as long as this ship is in British territory, my Department will carry out to the full the powers which Parliament have given us.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are not the only powers those which require that the captain and chief officer should be British, and that the others may be of any nationality?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is as well aware as I am, of what are the powers of my Department, and those powers shall be exercised.

Mr. HAYES: Is it the fact that this ship of many colours was paying wages to its crew which are not less than the wages which would have been paid to British seamen?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now deal with that question.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).

Sir F. HALL: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the increasing number of cases in which persons seriously injured in motor accidents are unable to recover damages against the motorists responsible owing to their lack of means, he will consider as to introducing legislation making it compulsory for persons before obtaining a driving licence to take out an insurance policy against third-party risks?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 3rd March to the hon. Member for the Wirral Division (Mr. Grace), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir F. HALL: Was not that answer to the effect that it will be necessary, and that the Government are going to introduce legislation?

colonel ASHLEY: No; the answer was to the effect that if and when I introduce the Road Vehicles Bill this matter will be given serious consideration.

CAVALRY (STRENGTH).

Viscount SANDON: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War if an extra cavalry regiment is required in England; and, if not, whether he will disband the regiment returned from India as surplus to requirements?

captain KING: This cavalry regiment is not surplus to our present requirements. If it were necessary to send a cavalry d vision overseas, it would be included in the division.

Viscount SANDON: In that case, what a-e the circumstances existing now to make it necessary, which were not existing in the past year or two?

captain KING: It is not surplus to the requirements for sending a cavalry division abroad.

colonel WEDGWOOD: What money would be saved if this cavalry regiment were dispensed with, as apparently it was dispensed with previously?

captain KING: I could not answer that question without notice.

colonel APPLIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the fact that a cavalry regiment may be disbanded in a day, but that it takes a decade to re-form it?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COLONIAL MANDATES).

Captain WALTER SHAW: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a provisional promise was given to Germany at Locarno to the effect that if she entered the League of Nations she might ultimately obtain a Colonial mandate; and whether such undertaking has the approval of our Dominions overseas?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): It was indicated to the German delegation at Locarno that Germany, as a member of the League of Nations, would be a possible candidate for Colonial mandates like all other members; that is a question of fact. It is incorrect, however, to suggest that any promise or undertaking was given to the
German Government. The second part of this question therefore does not arise.

ROYAL NAVY (VOCATIONAL TRAINING).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 80.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the exact amount of fees paid by men taking the vocational training course during 1925–26, as mentioned on page 82a of the current Estimates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The total amount of fees paid by the men undergoing the vocational training courses during 1925–26, up to 31st December, 1925, amounted to £1,220, and it is anticipated that the total for the financial year will be £1,600.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE (for Mr. FOOT MITCHELL): 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the abolition of the means test under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, he is aware that potential old age pensioners are experiencing difficulty in obtaining from the post offices the necessary forms; and whether he can state when such forms will be available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 2nd instant to a question of the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) on this subject.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. BENNETT): 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to consider the desirability of taking powers in the Finance Act to conclude conventions with different countries, if necessary on different bases, with regard to the whole question of the payment of Income Tax in foreign countries and in this country on the same profits?

Mr. McNEILL: A Committee of the League of Nations, on which this country is represented, will meet later this year to draw up draft conventions for the
avoidance of international double taxation with a view to their ultimate adoption by willing States. As at present advised, I do not think any good purpose would be served by taking action in the direction suggested in advance of the deliberations of this Committee.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT).

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he has anything to communicate to the House regarding the Coal Commission's Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House will have seen that the two parties are meeting next Thursday, and I am having a communication sent to-day to both parties inviting them to meet me on Tuesday morning.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Report stage of the Civil Services Vote on Account.
Tuesday: Report stage of Navy Estimates and the Navy Excess, and of the Army Estimates and Civil Services Excesses: Ways and Means Resolutions, Report.
Wednesday and Thursday: Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything as to the date when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill? Many of us are extremely anxious to study the somewhat difficult and technical questions of which we have not got very much knowledge at the present time.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I hope it will be on the Monday or Tuesday of the week after next, as near as I can tell my hon. Friend.

Mr. HERBERT: Before Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, before Easter.

Mr. HERBERT: Could not the right hon. Gentleman possibly postpone it until after Easter?

Mr. HARRIS: I hope he will not.

colonel GRETTON: Owing to the complexity and technicality of the arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision to have this Second Reading before Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I felt that a knowledge of the technicalities would be far more valuable on the Committee stage than on the Second Reading, as I think the Committee stage is the one to which hon. Members should devote their time. My object was to get the Bill into Committee, where it will require a great deal of examination, at the earliest possible date.

Mr. HERBERT: Does my right hon. Friend think himself, from his own knowledge of the Bill, that it is possible for Members to form any understanding of the principle of the scheme proposed unless and until they have been able to get information on the technical details of it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very sorry to attempt to form an estimate of what hon. Members can do.

Mr. THURTLE: Could the Prime Minister make it possible for the discussion on recent occurrences at Geneva to take such a form as would enable the House, if it thought fit, to record its opinion on the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: That rests with the Leaders of the Opposition.

BILLS REPORTED,

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

Mid-Nottinghamshire Joint Railways Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27 [VOTE ON ACCOUNT].

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £117,840,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, namely:

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES.

CLASS VII.



£


Ministry of Labour
4,550,000

INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS.

Mr. PURCELL: I beg to move,
That item Class VII, Vote 3 (Ministry of Labour), be reduced by £100.
I desire, in the first place, to draw attention to two matters that may be regarded as requiring attention separately. Those two are the treatment of what is generally known as the Women's Employment Committee and the question of the position of the Ministry towards trade boards. In regard to the first, I desire to draw attention to a point arising out of the Employment Committee regarding women, because we regarded this as a piece of purely constructive work. The training of women, in particular, in trades and occupations that would be regarded as suitable to them and would enable them to secure employment was a distinctly new thing, and, in our view, needed all the assistance, financial and otherwise, that the Ministry could render in that connection, but what we find is that at the present moment the grant has been reduced from some £80,000 to £60,000, as I understand the latest information in regard to it. Worse still, as far as our information goes, we are informed that the grant will now be spread over three periods of four months each, which means that £20,000 for four months only will be paid rather than that the full amount should be spread over the year, enabling the committee to organise the work beforehand. It means now that, so far as the training of women is concerned, what is going to happen is that arrangements can be made only four months ahead. That, under any circumstances, is an impracticable way of dealing with the question of the training of women, and I can scarcely imagine how anybody with any experience in training workers, whether male or female, can justify a method like that. It at least shows an amateurish attempt to handle a very important part of the unemployment problem.
Then there is the important question of the trade boards. The most remarkable thing about the Ministry's treatment of the trade boards is that just at the very time when every attempt should have been made to assist the workers in the various industries, particularly in the grocery trade, we are told that there is no need to set up the rates that have been agreed upon. We are told that the circumstances do not justify the setting up of those rates, but the fact is that throughout long years now the general request among the working people of this country has always been to secure trade hoards in order that we might save ourselves the difficulties that always arise from disputes and other things of that description. We were under the impression that the best guarantee for a sort of stability in trades of that description was to have bodies like trade boards set up, but where we could not get the people organised, it was more important still to assist those workers, through governmental aid, if you like, in the way of setting up these boards and registering rates of wages and hours and other conditions.
Here we had, in connection with the grocery trade, a distinct decision on the part of the trade hoard that a certain rate should be set up, and we have now got the information that the Ministry does not see its way clear to carry out that decision. Our view is that that its a violation, at any rate, of a policy that was carried on by former Governments of different parties, who were concerned about carrying out the decisions of trade boards, but to-day, when prices are as high, relatively speaking, as has been the case, previously, we have the rates of wages and conditions of employment in the grocery trade falling away more completely than ever. There are more young persons getting into blind-alley employment inside the grocery trade to-day than was ever the case before. Ever-increasing numbers are flocking into that trade, and, as a consequence, there is little or no organisation and no guarantee as far as wages and hours are concerned.
When we come to other cases, like the catering trade, for example, if there is a sweated trade in this country, it is the catering trade. Yet the Ministry says this is not a good time, to do anything with regard to it. There was an inquiry, the result of which has not been given to
this House. We have had none of the documents, not even the document upon which the Ministry formed its own decision not to set up a board for the catering trade, though, singularly, in this particular trade the wages are the very worst. It would be difficult to find any other trade or occupation where wages and hours are worse than in the catering trade. The unions have taken a considerable amount of trouble to get the information, because we could not get it as a result of the action of the Ministry itself. The unions have gone into the matter, and concluded that a board is necessary. It is upon their information that these figures are based. We find waitresses in this country at the present time receiving in wages 7s. to 17s. 6d. per week. In very rare cases the wages go to 25s. a week. I know it will be said in most of these cases they get tips. An inquiry has been made into the tipping system. In the largest shops, those which may be regarded as large company shops, the tips are the lowest of all. The average works out at under 2s., and the better-class shop at 4s. per week. If you treble that amount, and put it on to the 7s. to 17s. 6d. a week, the wages would then be sweated.
The conditions in this trade can only be likened to white slavery. The hours range from 51 to 73, the general rate running through most of the catering trade being 73 hours a week. There are very few cases indeed where the hours are 51. If ever there was a case where the Ministry could have done a good and useful thing for a great and increasing army of workpeople, it was in this case. It cannot be said that it is subject to foreign competition, any more than the under taking trade is subject to foreign competition. None of the arguments that would be put up with regard to the steel and engineering trades, or trades of that description, or with regard to what are known as the sheltered trades, can be brought forward in this case. We are told that
The Acts would only be extended to new trades where it had been clearly ascertained by a systematic investigation that sweating conditions prevailed.
Anybody who has been behind the counters or in the kitchens, and who knows the conditions, the long hours and constant movement in which these people
work must be convinced that the trade is a sweated trade. Perhaps it would be well if the Minister told us what he would call a sweated trade. Would he say that where the wages are 5s. a week, with a maximum of 10s., that was a sweated trade? The next step would seem to be so far backward that the workers must pay to be employed, and then, perhaps, it would be a sweated industry. Surely no Minister or any Member of the House is prepared to justify these rates, and, on these grounds, we are entitled to urge that steps should, at any rate, be taken to improve conditions, and I think it would improve conditions to set up the Boards necessary in those cases. One thing against which we are entitled to protest is that, immediately upon this Government's resumption of office, and immediately the employers see the Government's representatives, there should be this hostility to the continuance of Trade Boards. The truth is that the Government are standing behind the employers, and not assisting the working class in anything we want done.
I wish to draw attention to the attitude of the Ministry with regard to work-people in this country at the present time, and this is of general application to those workers who have been, what I call, completely ordered off the unemployment insurance. The whole thing now seems to be at the discretion of the Ministry, and a certain set of officers. Whatever those officers say is taken for granted, and large numbers of people, really good, high-class workmen are swept away from benefit at their instigation. The Ministry seems to take it for granted on the information of those officials, and if an inquiry is set up, it is among officers of a similar temperament. These workers have contributed, if not from the point of view of contributions to the Unemployment Fund, at any rate as an asset to this country. I believe every hon. Member is constantly getting letters from constituents relating to people who have been struck off. I cannot go into many of them, but I will draw attention to one which is most important, because it shows to what extent these men are suffering. The letter will indicate pretty well the type of man with whom you are dealing. The letter runs:
I beg to bring to your notice my position with respect to unemployment benefit.
I am now 62 years of age, and worked continually in the Chepstow and Sudbrook shipyards from 1888 until 1923. Owing to the industrial conditions in Chepstow, I. in common with hundreds of men, lost my employment. Since 1923 I have only worked very casually. Perhaps at the very most I have been able to secure 10 or 15 stamps on my card. On 2nd September last I was notified that I could no longer receive any benefits under the Act. As a matter of fact, I have received no payment since about the second week in August.
My case is very well known to the local unemployment committee, who seem to be powerless to help me. Every effort has been made by me to obtain employment, but scores of men younger and more able than I am cannot get employment. I claim that inasmuch as I am out of work through no fault of my own, but through the industrial condition, I ought to continue to receive benefits under the Act.
I shall be pleased to give you names of employers, and also well-known local gentlemen, who will bear testimony regarding my inability to obtain employment.
This is a case where the discretion of the Minister has been used completely to cut the man off benefit. I want to ask the Minister, what does he think is going to be the future mental make-up of this man—never mind about the present mental make-up? This man was for 35 years at one job. Since the Insurance Acts came into operation, he would have paid 15 years' contribution at the very least, and he is now at a period when it would have been a useful thing to him, and when it would have been a good thing for the Minister to have used the discretion he has, even though it might be assumed to be against public policy. He would, at any rate, have been maintaining in benefit one who, through a long course of years, has subscribed very liberally to the funds of the insurance organisation. This is not an isolated case, but one of thousands and thousands at the present time, and I do not wonder that many of our work-people, many of them not even Labour men, believe that this House has become a sort of mausolem of buried hopes so far as the people of this country are concerned, and that appears to be the position with regard to large numbers of men at the present time.
4.0 P.M
It would seem, if we proceed rapidly along these lines, that, instead of having a C 3 nation, we shall very soon get a Z 26 nation. That letter is a. fair indication that unemployment is an unmitigated curse to large masses of the people of this
country. I want to tell the Committee, quite frankly, that the time is rapidly approaching when it will be impossible to deal with this question of unemployment it this way. We heard it said the other day that the number of unemployed has gone down from 1,200,000 to 1,120,000. What does it all mean? If we are to be delighted at a change of that description, it means that we are, as it were, agreeing to the permanency of this problem. We are getting quite used to 1,200,000 and 1,300,000 unemployed, and we are glad that the number has fallen 50,000. We hoped that it would have fallen by 60,000, and we think it would have been much better if it had fallen 80,000. What does it all mean? It means that a million are being almost perpetually ground down to unemployment.
As far as I can see, this figure of 1,000,000 simply represents your signatories. Behind that number, there are perhaps 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 more people who are suffering dire distress and agony as a consequence of the conditions under which they are living. In addition, it is forcing upon us these horrible housing conditions of which we hear over and over again. You can change your housing system, you can get tin boxes, or iron boxes, or cow sheds, or barns, or Weir houses, but people in that poverty-stricken condition will live where they can and under what conditions they can. We all know that the amount you pay in unemployment benefit will practically buy only a decent hotel dinner. Yet we are continually hearing of people living on this dole. It was the biggest insult to the working people of this country when it was called a dole, because every cent of it belongs to them. Indeed, we ought to move a vote of thanks to them in view of the fact that the Government are able to make a proposal to lift £5,500,000 out of the fund which they have created, or will at least be able to lilt it as the years go on.
This 1,000,000 of unemployed includes not only a large army of skilled men, but, side by side with them, 200,000 women. The treatment which we are meting out to the women at the present time is brutal in the extreme. That cannot he disputed. You have, first of all, reduced the amount to be spent on training these women. It is the very best
thing that has been done by the Ministry, and it ought to be kept going. But you are going to deprive them of training to the extent of £2,500 per year. The anticipated amount of this reduced grant is £3,600, but formerly it was £6,000 per year. We ought to have some account as to what is going to be done with this £2,500 that is being completely thrown over so far as the training scheme is concerned. Again, is there any justification for the treatment of many applicants for benefit and those who are being scored off at the present time? Nobody can justify it. We protest against the attitude which the Ministry and its officials are taking up with regard to many of these women. The only reason they give in many cases for taking them off the fund is that it is against public policy or public interest to give them the benefit. Have the Ministry thought what is happening with regard to a large number of these women and girls? We have homes for lost dogs and lost cats, but there is no home for the decent woman who is unemployed. They can be scored off with ease and comfort, and people can be got to justify it. We are here to protest against the attitude of the Ministry with regard to these women. The Ministry could do more. If the Government gave £50,000, £60,000 or £100,000 more to keep these women under far better conditions, it, would be doing a very useful piece of work. We are sometimes told, particularly in connection with the women, that the Socialism which many of the Members on this side of the House advocate is destroying home life. As a matter of fact, the Ministry, by cutting these people off from benefit, are almost daily and weekly destroying home life in this country, and we think that aspect of the question should be considered.
There is another thing I want to say with regard to this question. I want to draw attention to the fact that there are large numbers of young men who get to the age of 16 or 17 and who are discharged because there is no further opportunity for continuing them at work in certain industries. The treatment they get is simply to put them off without any hope for the future. If there was any real, genuine desire to handle this problem properly, the Ministry would at least organise that army of young men and women and see that they are given
opportunities in training schools, technical schools, or secondary schools to link up their education. No Minister dare stand up at that Box and oppose the spending of money for such an object, and any Minister who proposed it would receive the general support of the vast mass of people who at the present time are suspicious, doubtful, and hostile to the Department because of what is happening to large number of our people. If you say you cannot do this, then I refer you to the fact that it is quite easy, when you want to subsidise beet-sugar, or housing, for you to handle the problem. But when it comes to looking after the men, women, and children of this country, it seems to be such a difficult problem that you have not the money to deal with it. We very easily find £4,000,000 for our Mesopotamian exploits, but, when it is for the purpose of assisting people at home, then it seems such a difficult proposition that we talk about the hardship and impracticability of it.
The Minister of Labour would find no better supporters than among the trade union element if he made any determined attempt to assist the workers in this connection. We world give him every support if he would put his hands to this problem in such a way as to be an assistance to the people of the country rather than to oppose them as at present. You can go on scoring these men and women off your unemployment books and forcing many women, as you are doing, to become prostitutes and many of our best men to lose their hearts and to do things which under ordinary circumstances they would not do, but do not forget that you are creating a great mass of resentment against these institutions. You must remember that large numbers of these men bore arms, and bore arms on your behalf for a. long period. They will be thinking about this treatment, and they will be reminded of your promises. Rather than encourage them to revolt in such a. way as to create a danger to our institutions and to the general stability of the country, you ought to assist them to give of their best. At the present time you are assisting them on the down grade. They are being spoiled, and they are being encouraged to have a hatred of society. Be careful
that this great mass of unemployed does not overwhelm those who are responsible for their treatment.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: It is significant of the attitude of the Government towards the problem of unemployment that their Estimates this year show a decrease of over £2,000,000. It seems as if the Government were prepared to sit down and be content with this constant figure of over 1,000,000 unemployed. We are told that the average unemployment is 10 per cent. or 11 per cent., and yet, appalling as that figure is, we know that in certain trades and in certain parts of the country unemployment reaches 20 per cent., and in other trades and districts, as in the case of the shipbuilding industry on the North-East Coast it reaches as much as 50 per cent I submit that the handling of the problem, which may he quite satisfactory where you have two and five per cent. unemployed, is quite inadequate and breaks down where you have 20 per cent., 30 per cent., 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. unemployed. We cannot simply go on the old lines. Do the Committee realise what we have been doing during recent years? It is somewhat appalling to note that since the Armistice, according to replies which I obtained from the Parliamentary Secretary the other day, we have paid out £340,000,000 hard cash for no services rendered. Unemployment has taken £238,000,000, out-of-work donation £62,000,000, and £40,000,000 has gone in relief to the able-bodied unemployed.
Are we to be satisfied going on the same lines in the next few years, spending hundreds of millions without getting anything in return? This year these Estimates, and the estimates of the local authorities provide for something like £70,000,000 or £80,000,000 to be paid away for no services rendered. Surely it does not pass the wit of man, when spending these millions, to see at any rate that we get some return. The unemployed do not want to receive benefit or poor law relief without rendering any service. They wish to have honest, decent work rather than take this money and give no service in return. If we are going to spend these millions, the Government might consider whether it would not be better to spend the money, giving work rather than benefit and relief. We had not long ago a debate on the question of our roads,
and the need for main arterial roads, for secondary roads, and for roads of all classes and description was made manifest. If we spent some of these millions on improving our road and transport system, we should at the end of the year have some valuable assets to show. Take the question of our canals and inland water service. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health presided over a Commission which went into that matter, and their report showed that there was room for improvement and for refashioning and remaking our inland water system.
There are many other ways in which help can be rendered. There is land and Foreshore reclamation, and there is the question of improved harbours, improved tramways, extension of light railways in the rural districts which are in close touch with the urban districts and which will bring them into closer touch, and so take out the congested populations of the towns into the country districts. All these things would give us valuable national assets for the money which is at present being spent and for which we are getting nothing in return. If the Government have not the vision, the foresight, or the ability to do these things themselves, surely, there is no reason why they should stop local authorities doing work of the kind? Yet that is the effect of the issue of a circular which the Ministry have distributed to the local authorities, with a view to hampering the efforts of the local authorities to get on with useful work to employ the unemployed. We need to employ more men and not less; yet, according to the figures given the other day in the House, the latest returns for January of this year show that 104,000 men were employed on State schemes, compared with 109,000 a year ago. That is a decrease of 5,000 men, although unemployment in the country is greater than it was a year ago.
The same is indicated in the amount of money sanctioned for various works of public utility and various work for the relief of unemployment. From October to January last we had £7,000,000 worth of work sanctioned as compared with £9,000,000 worth of work in the previous year, showing a. £2,000,000 decrease, and a gradual decrease in the efforts of the Government to provide work instead of
an increase in that effort. The same tendency is shown in the Votes that have not yet been, but will be, presented in connection with unemployment grants and grants for the relief of unemployment. These figures show a falling off of £1,500,000. I suppose that is considered to be economy! It may be of a saving character, but it is economy at the head at the expense of the ratepayers. The unemployed have to live, even if there is no work provided for them. If unemployment benefit is cut down they are simply forced on to the rates. It is surely a mean and a. paltry policy on the part of the Government to get out of their responsibilities by thrusting upon the local ratepayers a burden which ought to be borne by the taxpaper!
Unemployment really is a national, and not a local problem. Certain districts have an excessive number of unemployed, the result of the War. Many districts are worse hit because during the War certain towns and areas became known as munitions towns and areas where the people crowded during the War at the call of the nation to make munitions. Having got to these places, these districts and towns, the Armistice came along, and then we got the housing problem. Because of the shortage of houses, it is difficult for these people to move away to their former homes from where they have been working—that is to say, from the munitions centres. Therefore these centres, and the iron and steel districts, because of the trend of events, have, a much bigger proportion of unemployed than rightly belongs to them. The local authorities are left with the maintenance of the unemployed, and this problem is aggravated by the refusal of the Government to put in hand, or to allow the local authorities to put in hand, public work, while at the same time they are cutting down unemployment relief. The whole attitude of the Government is that of endeavouring to evade their national responsibilities, and to put on to the localities a burden which they have no right to bear.
I wish also to protest against the administration of unemployment benefit. I should like to give one or two illustrations of what I mean. Take the case of a man who has been employed 10 or 12 years, and has contributed towards unemployment insurance. At the end of
that time he, it may be, retires and sets up a little business, may be he becomes manager of a public house, and carries that on for a year or so. At the end of that time he finds his new occupation has not been a success, and he endeavours to get back to his own trade. He cannot, however, get any work. Because of the Regulations he is debarred from receiving unemployment benefit because he has not been in the proper employment during the specified time. I should like to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry whether that is fair, whether, indeed, it is not a gross act of injustice seeing that this man has contributed practically towards unemployment benefit over a long period of years, and has never drawn a penny piece himself; yet now that he is unemployed, by the working of this rule, he is debarred from any benefit whatsoever. I submit that the charge of getting money under false pretences might almost be made against the Government.
There is another case I can give the Parliamentary Secretary, a case perhaps not involving quite so much hardship. All the same, it is one deserving attention. I refer to the case of a man who has been working for an employer who goes into bankruptcy. From his wages have been deducted his contribution. The man goes to apply for benefit—I refer to a ease which happened some time ago—and the benefit is refused because that man's late employer has failed to stamp his card. I submit that in a case of that sort the whole burden ought not to fall on these insured persons. The State should bear some of it because they have authorised the employer to make the deduction, and the deduction having been made, it is not the fault of the man. The State ought to exercise discretion in a case like this and grant benefit. There have also been hardships owing to the refusal of extended benefit. A little time ago I was asked by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians to draw the attention of the Ministry to the exceedingly hard way in which they were administering extended benefit in particular cases. The local committee recommended benefit. These recommendations have been turned down by the action of certain officials of the Ministry. The board of guardians pointed out to the Minister that the rota
committees had been served by those who gave up a considerable amount of time to the work, and patiently went into the various cases that were brought before them. They knew the local circumstances, and knowing all these, they made the recommendations which were subsequently turned down by people with no local knowledge. There are hundreds of cases, not one or two, which have been turned down. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that there should be other instructions given in the case of the local committees which inquire into these cases of extended benefit, and make their recommendations. These instructions should be to the effect that these recommendations should not be upset by any outside body or official who knows nothing of the circumstances.
Particularly do I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to cases which have appeared before the guardians of men who have worked 30 or 40 years at some job, men who have never been unemployed till the present time, and who, because of impossibility of finding work, and so showing that they have been employed for what is considered a reasonable period of time, have been refused benefit. To say that in a shipyard and an engineering district where most of the work is closed down that a man has not been genuinely seeking work, or that he has not had a reasonable amount of employment during the succeeding 12 months or a few years, is foolish. Fifty per cent. of the shipyard workers on the North-East coast are out of work. The suggestion that men are not genuinely seeking work cannot apply to these men, and particularly to men who have never before been out of work, and have contributed for years and years to the Insurance Fund.
The extent of this harsh administration is evidenced by the increase in the number of those applying for poor relief. We have been told in the last day or two by various Ministers about the wonderful reduction now taking place in unemployment. It may be a big reduction in the unemployment benefit that is being paid, but I doubt very much whether there is any real reduction in unemployment. This, I think, is evidenced by the fact that in the Middlesbrough area before these harsh rules were being administered, when the administration was more sym-
pathetic, we find—in July of last year—the total number of able-bodied cases of relief in the Middlesbrough Union was 1,065 at a cost of, £720 a week. In February of this year the number had increased to 2,081 and the cost to £1,809, practically three times as much. That does not look as if there is any real decrease in the amount of unemployment. It shows that the local rates are having to bear burdens which, if continued throughout the year, will put an extra 1s. 6d. in the on the rates. This will mean £1,000 per week increase on the local rates. I submit that the policy and aim of the Ministry should be above that. The administration should be more sympathetic. All this sort of thing does not make for a revival in trade.
Instead of refusing money, we ought to have more money spent by the Ministry of Labour in the way I have suggested, because the money will have to be spent in any case. If the money is, spent in a harsh and inhuman method of administration, then that administration is going to punish those who ought not to be punished, and it only means transferring burdens to the local rates, which are already at breaking point. In many parts of the country the local rates are standing at 18s., 19s., and 20s. on the pound. It is impossible to go on on that scale because the very increase in the rates is retarding the recovery of industry. The rates are a heavy first charge on industry and manufacture. Taxes are a burden. Rates are a greater burden. The Income Tax, at any rate, is provided out of profits made, whereas the rates are a first charge of industry, even if there are no profits and, perhaps, before any work is engaged upon.
Therefore, I do say that the Ministry and officials should adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards the administration of extended benefit. They should not be so keen at turning down the recommendations of the local committees which have gone into the question thoroughly, carefully, and know the merits of the cases. They are better judges, surely, than those gentlemen who sit in Whitehall, or some other distance away. I appeal to the Ministry, instead of cutting down the grants in relief of unemployment work, that they should give increased grants. At the present time the grants authorised are only
75 per cent. for half the loan period. The local authorities receive a substantial contribution in normal times. In times like the present, when the rates are at breaking point, and many of the local authorities have exhausted their resources, and spent, it may be, more than they can afford for unemployed work, I submit that it is to the benefit of the Government to increase and not to reduce the grants. We are told that one of the reasons against these grants is that they have to come from industry. I am only pleading for money which will have to be spent in any case, either in unemployment relief or in unemployment benefit. Instead of it being paid where no services are rendered, ought it not rather to be turned to useful employment, to the finding of work that will be a help in keeping up the moral of the people, and will be a national asset after the work is accomplished?

Mr. CECIL WILSON: There are certain cases of administration which I desire to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary—some of them have been before the Ministry before—which to my mind call for a- little more consideration on the part both of the Committees and of the officers of the Ministry. I recognise fully that in many of these cases both the officers and the Committees have a difficult task, but I do not think that such full consideration has been given to them as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would expect. The first case is one to which I called attention in a question a week ago. It is the case of Albert McCabe. In the first place, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this was a case in which some discretion had been exercised by the Committee in consequence of the man's earnings, seeing that there was only the man and his wife, and that the wages during 16 weeks amounted to an average of 23s.? Nothing on that point was said to the man in refusing benefit. The ground upon which he was refused benefit was stated to be that he was not genuinely seeking work. This man is 55 years of age and a steel melter. As is perfectly well known, the steel trade is in an extremely depressed condition. He has the opportunity of working every fortnight and takes it.
His complaint is not so much about the decision of the Committee as about the
treatment he received when before the Committee. He was told by a member of the Committee, "You earn ¢1 a day." He replied, "Yes, when I am in full work I can earn £1 a day." As a matter of fact he is only getting something like a day a fortnight. Then a member of the Committee said to him, "Get out. We do not want any £1 a day men here." Whether it is true or not that he is able to earn a day, a remark of that kind is entirely uncalled for and ought not to be permitted. The question I put a week ago was as to whether when he was before the Committee there was any complaint as to his conduct, and the reply I got was that on learning that benefit would not be granted he created a certain amount of disturbance. It was after the decision had been reached, but it was before it had been communicated to him that he was told he was earning £1 a day and, when he tried to explain, was told to get out. That must indicate to any impartial person that the temper of the Committee was not what it ought to have been. The case was one of a man unemployed through no fault of his own. He could get employment when employment was available, and I put it with respect to his case, as to other cases that have been brought to one's notice, that that is not the right kind of treatment to come from men who are in no way suffering when dealing with men who are suffering very great hardship.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Did he kick up a row?

Mr. WILSON: He said something that was not convenient—that was not Parliamentary, perhaps.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Good luck to him.

Mr. WILSON: The next ease is one of a different character. It is that of a man 63 years of age who for 33 years had been in employment. Then his employment stopped—the place was closed—and he had to search for work elsewhere. He came before the Committee, who turned him down.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Whose case is this?

Mr. WILSON: The case of Arthur Jones. The committee turned down this
case on the ground that this man of 63 was not genuinely seeking work. I wrote to the manager of the Sheffield Employment Exchange to ask what chance there was for men of 60 years of age to find employment, and this is his reply, dated 28th October:
No applications are received at the Sheffield Exchange for workmen over 60 years of age in any trade. Whilst there are several thousand workmen below the age of 60 unemployed, it is improbable that any inquiries will be made for the older men.
Why do not the committee say frankly to the man:
"We are very sorry, but there is no chance of a man of your age finding employment"? He is a man who has held one job for 33 years, and yet he is told that he is not genuinely seeking work. It is the total lack of real human sympathy in cases of this sort that causes so much distress. He ought to have been shown more consideration instead of being treated in that way. What is offered to his wife, a woman of 67? She is told that she ought to go as cook in some institution in Staffordshire. A woman of that age: I say again it is improper treatment for these people, against whom nothing is to be alleged except their misfortune.
Here is another case of an extraordinary kind which I took up with the Ministry in July last. This is the case of Tickhill. He was refused benefit, in spite of the fact that he had 47 stamps on his card, on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking work. It was subsequently admitted that a form which had been used occasionally by the Ministry in connection with the Sheffield; Board of Guardians had been used and filled in by the Ministry to the effect that the man was not genuinely seeking work, and that that form ought not to have been used. What do the hoard of guardians say in regard to it?
Relief was given. The form was sent to the Employment Exchange and was returned marked 'disallowed.' It was marked 'B,' which, according to the code in use, means 'Not genuinely seeking work.' 
This is the report on that case of the Superintendent of Out-relief—his report on a main with whom he has not been in touch occasionally but in continual touch for three years:
Worked for the Nunnery Colliery for many years till July, 1922, having to leave the pit owing to eye trouble. Since then
he has worked odd weeks for several builders, and for fairly long periods on corporation relief work, and we are of opinion that he would take any kind of work he is able to do. We believe him to be a respectable man.
The Committee, however, turned down toe man's application on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking work. I took this matter up, and had a letter from the Ministry, who explained the statement, that he was not seeking work by saying he was not taking what opportunities there were for obtaining employment in the mines locally—this at the very time when, of the two pits in the neighbourhood, one was actually discharging men and the other, for the first time for a long period, had been reducing employment to four days a week. This man had to leave the pit in consequence of eye trouble, and yet it is maintained, not by the Sheffield Committee but by the Ministry here, that he ought to go back into the pit again. I say that is a most unjust way in which to treat any man. His position was that: he, his wife and three children had to live on a fortnight's earnings or, rather, each fortnight they have to live on half the money they ought to he having, simply because of this error, which was pointed out months and months ago and in regard to which he can get no consideration. They were really starving.
A fourth case was one about which I asked a question in August. It concerns certain tramway work. When four men applied at the Attercliffe Exchange they were told that this was relief work, and they must apply to the guardians. They applied to the guardians, and the guardians sent them back to Attercliffe. Then Attercliffe sent them to the Sheffield Exchange. The Sheffield Exchange sent them to the Town Hall, and the Town Hall sent them back to the Sheffield Exchange. I was told that this did not actually occur. I have interviewed one of the officials of the Ministry and discussed it with him. I said, "There has been a complete misunderstanding, and I want it cleared up. Can we have an inquiry on the spot, with these four men present, in order to see what the actual state of affairs is and how the misunderstanding arose so that if they have misrepresented what actually took place we may know about it?" But no inquiry takes place,
and I am simply assured again that I am mistaken in regard to the matter.
Now I come to a reply which I received two days ago to a question I asked on 15th December. It has taken three months to get this reply, because the matter has been the subject of examination by the Clerk to the Sheffield Guardians and by officers of the Ministry of Labour. That question had reference to the granting of relief in cases when unemployment benefit had been refused to the number of cases, and the cost. The statement I received goes into a good many questions which I did not ask, but which I am extremely glad to have information upon. It is true the reply is from the Ministry of Health, but they have been in communication with the Ministry of Labour. The comparison here is between the figures on the 21st February and the 28th November, the dates. I asked for: The number of cases relieved on account of suspension of unemployment benefit goes up from 966 to 2,360. The number of cases receiving benefit go down from 2,250 to 1,639. The number of cases not receiving benefit go up from 966 to 2,399 and the amount of relief granted owing to the suspension of benefit goes up from £965 to £2,575 per week. That means an expenditure of £83,000 a year has been thrown on to a necessitous area, which is very hard hit at the present time by the action of the Ministry. Particulars follow as to the 2,360 cases.
In 2,196 cases they say definite decisions of disqualification wore Laced and the balance represents cases under consideration, or in fact in receipt of standard or extended benefit. In 80 of the other eases a re-hearing had taken place and benefit was again being paid. All these claims were traced for extended and not for standard benefit. In 98 cases disallowance was on the ground that the applicant was not normally in insured employment. In 168 cases they were disqualified on the ground that insurable employment was not likely to be available, and in 999 cases on the ground that the applicant had not had a reasonable period of employment during the last two years. In 513 cases the disqualification was on the ground that the applicant was not making a. reasonable effort to obtain employment. Therefore you have here 513 cases disqualified on the
ground that they are not making a reasonable effort to find employment although there are 999 oases for whom employment is at the same time not available, and surely that is an extraordinary decision to arrive at. Then there comes a statement which justifies the Minister in telling us repeatedly that in regard to regulations made for the disallowance of benefit "really these cases are very few amounting here to only 20 out of 2,196," and, of course, this throws into the air any arguments used on this side as to their being a, large number of these cases.
But this is not the whole story. I do not know whether the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour are in the habit of issuing statements of this kind. It is perfectly true that they are engaged in doing subtraction sums and trying to reduce the number on the Unemployment Register, but I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do a sum in simple addition, and if he does he will find that the total of these cases amounts to a good deal less than the total given, many of them are not accounted for at all, in spite of the fact that
"definite decisions of disqualification were traced." The number unaccounted for in the cases I have cited is 318, and our allegation is that they have been disqualified in consequence of the Regulations to which I have alluded. When particulars of this sort are given we have a right to ask that the whole facts should be disclosed, and we should be supplied with the whole story. If in a matter of this sort figures which are so incomplete are supplied, then, with regard to some of the other figures which we have quoted, we certainly have, very great reason to ask whether there is any reliance to be placed upon them.

Mr. SANDEMAN: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said he wanted more money spent out of the unemployment fund, but I want to see very much less spent in that way. I would like to see this fund accumulating to such an extent that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to cast an eye upon it and see how much he can get out of it, and that can only be done by getting the total amount of unemployment considerably reduced. The real cause of un-
employment is the absolute distrust to be found all over the country, and it is all very well for hon. Members belonging to the Labour party blaming capital. My view is that hon. Members above the Gangway are just as much to blame, and even more so, than capital. It is all very well for hon. Members to keep talking about the evils of the capitalist system, but what are they doing to improve platters? They are simply making people in the country as unhappy as they possibly can, and they are not trying to get together the capitalists and the workers in order to arrive at some sort of understanding between them. Take as an example the engineers' strike which is now going on—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The questions which the hon. Member is now raising do not arise on this Vote.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Surely I am not very far away from the mark when I am trying to show how unemployment can be reduced. I suggest that we should try to get a better feeling between trade unionists and capitalists, and actually come to a bargain with the employers. I am perfectly certain if we do this that a great deal would be done to get unemployment benefit reduced, and then we should be able to establish a strong fund for the time when things might be even worse than they are now. At present things are not so bad if we could only come together and try to make them better. What the Left wing are trying to do now in regard to the Insurance Fund is simply to burst it. They want to see things as bad as possible. I know that they are better talkers than workers, but I happen to be a better worker than a talker. I am always present in the House to do my duty, which is a good deal more than can be said for a number of other hon. Members. I am simply justifying myself by saying a few words in favour of getting this Unemployment Insurance Fund reduced, and if my hon. Friends above the Gangway would do a little less talking and a little more work in order to get things placed upon a more workable footing, then the Insurance Fund would be reduced very considerably.

Captain GUEST: I have listened to the Debates on this question with an increasing feeling of despondency and despair. I submit that the subject we are now discussing is one of the most
vital questions with which we are asked to deal. I am sorry that in our discussions upon this question recrimination still holds the field at a time when there are over 1,000,000 men and women out of work and the cost has been put at £100,000,000 a year. Besides this, we must remember that, year after year, we are spending vast sums of money in order to keep these people from absolute destitution. In reference to the provision of these funds, some support and favour the Income Tax payer at the expense of the ratepayer and vice versa, but all the time the number of unemployed remains about the same and the burden on industry has still to be carried. If we read the Coal Report and the Government adopt its suggestions, then, obviously, the number of unemployed will be increased. Unless we face the problem, as the Report warns the country to face it, we shall find ourselves in a more desperate condition than we are now, and the effect on these people is bound to swell the number of unemployed. Therefore I say without any hesitation to the Minister who is representing the Government to-day that he must, at all costs, find a cure for unemployment. For five years now we have been contemplating this problem. There was the first wave after the War, when the figure was very high; then it gradually fell, and it has now reached a level of about 1,250,000. We seem to be taking it for granted that there must always be somewhere in the region of 1,000,000 men and women out of work. I think we ought to make up our minds in exactly the opposite direction and find some cure for this problem.
If you compare the proposals of the three different parties in this House you will find that they do not differ very greatly. Take the Socialist proposals. It is that there should be a Development Board and to that Board should be handed a sum amounting to several millions in order to deal with this problem. As regards the Liberal policy, the fact that so much work has been done in connection with this problem is largely due to the foresight of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but a lot of the work which has been put in hand will very likely prove to be unnecessary and unsuitable before it is completed, and
a great deal of it is uneconomical as well.
5.0 P.M
The policy of the present Government is very little more than the pursuit of the policy of their predecessors. Take the case of the coal industry. That industry having come on to the rocks, they come forward with a subsidy at the expense of the State. These policies are very much alike, and, if we could cease treating this question as a party question, there is nothing to stop the three Leaders of the three parties from getting together and trying to solve the problem on a national basis. One may be told that one is asking for an ideal, but it is only by the three parties working together that a solution big enough to solve the problem can be undertaken. Palliatives have become exhausted.
There is a cure, and I believe it is at our door if we have the courage to face and grasp it. My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough mentioned earlier in the Debate that during the last four years the State had spent unprofitably £340,000,000 in trying to keep pace with this problem, and I have mentioned myself that £100,000,000 a year, borne by industry, has been devoted to the problem. With that money, and with a real policy, such as I will submit in a minute, I am certain that the evil could be cured. My proposal is a little influenced by the efforts and the performances of the administrative Departments during the War, which showed that there is no limit to the magnitude of the effort the nation can make in an emergency. When we were fighting the foe in France and Flanders, the nation rose as one man, and was not frightened at any expense. I submit that this sad evil of unemployment is just as serious a national danger as the enemy was in France and Flanders. If we do not cure this evil while we yet can, it will become a festering sore, which will harm the moral of our people, not only now but in the next generation also. How can people remain almost permanently living on relief in one form or another, without degenerating morally and physically?
What is the field which I submit is available for this cure? It is the British Empire. Why cannot we think in terms of the Empire as a unit, instead of thinking only of this country or that country,
whichever it may be? Those of us who have travelled a good deal in the Empire know that the untapped resources of the Empire are limitless. Of course, the answer may come back that the Dominion Parliaments do not care to assist us very much. There is some truth in that, but it is largely because, first of all, they cannot find the development to give the emigrant sufficient to do, and, secondly, they do not wish that the emigrant should take from their own nationals, if I may so call them, the money which they earn in wages.

Mr. WALLHEAD: They cannot raise loans.

Captain GUEST: I am informed that they cannot raise loans. I submit, however, that, if the Dominions do not care to take our emigrants on a permanent basis, they might take them on a temporary basis. What is there to prevent our sending a quarter of a million able-bodied men across the seas, of course, by arrangement with the Dominion Governments, to undertake specific productive work in those lands? It sounds a little unusual, perhaps, but I can give instances. Not long ago a band of men went out to assist in collecting a Canadian harvest, and rendered good service both to the Canadians and to themselves. Again, it is well known that there are hundreds of square miles of swamp in British Columbia which could be reclaimed to-day if there were enough labour to do it; and we all know what Australia would say if she had a chance of obtaining labour on this scale. Instead of spending £340,000,000 on unproductive work, instead of spending £100,000,000 a year, which is nothing more or less than a burden on industry, we could with the greatest of ease, as we did during the War, send these armies of men on temporary visits to carry out specific work. It is suggested that they will not come back, and possibly a good many would be absorbed into the life of the Dominions in which they worked, but in many cases it would relieve this country of an intolerable burden, and give backmoral to those people who are at present suffering from the receipt of relief. I submit that the scheme I have suggested is worth trying. We have the money, and we could undertake it if we
cared to, and I believe it is well worth the while of the Government to give some consideration to it.

Viscountess ASTOR: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of unemployment among women. At present there are 200,000 women registered as unemployed, and the actual number is probably far greater—probably about 250,000. I should be glad if I could have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary on this, and I should very much like also to have the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I think he comes into it too. I shall be most grateful if he will keep his seat and listen, because this is very important from a woman's point of view. At the present time there are 200,000 registered unemployed women, but there are a good many more not registered, and we think the total is probably about 250,000. No relief work is provided for unemployed women, and there is only one scheme which tries to train and help this large number of women and girls. It is the Central Committee on Women's Trades and Unemployment. It came into being after the War, and its object was to absorb some of the thousands of girls who were thrown out of employment. At the present time, training centres have been established by it up and down the country, where already 37,330 women have been trained. I am certain that the Committee will be interested to hear that about 60 per cent. of the women who have been trained in these centres have found domestic employment, and about 85 per cent. of those who have been given professional training are known to have found work on completion of their training.
This Committee, however, has had to exist in a hand-to-mouth manner. It has been given grants, out has been told that it might have to close down, and it has been very difficult to get grants for it. It represents the only attempt that has been made in this country in any way to deal with unemployment among women. The present grant is £80,000, and I want to ask the Government not to cut it down, but, if possible, to extend it. I ask them to do this on the ground of economy, because most of the women are drawn from insurable trades, so that an actual saving is effected by converting them from unemployed into employed women. When
we say anything about women, we are usually asked, why do they not go into domestic service? There are many reasons. I am all for girls going into domestic service if they are fitted and trained for it. I would be the last person not to encourage them to do it. But it is absurd to think that you can either dragoon or starve girls into domestic service. If you want to get them into domestic service, which, after all, is a highly skilled occupation, you have got to persuade them, and, in many cases, not only to persuade them, but to train them.
We know that at one time it was one of the favourite arguments of the stunt Press to talk about the long line of unemployed girls going and drawing the dole while they refused to go into domestic service. There was so much row about it that the Governmente—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has gone!"] Has he gone? [HON. MEMBERS: "He has nothing to give away!"] I know, but I wanted to give him something. I am certain, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary is in full sympathy. After the stunt Press had started that argument—and even now it takes it up—a Departmental Committee was set up, in 1922, and, after going very thoroughly into the question of unemployed women, that Committee reported that the payment of unemployment benefit to women had very little to do with the shortage of domestic servants. We were very pleased at that, because many of us who are interested in this question were continually hearing people ask, whenever we mentioned the matter, "Why do they not go into domestic service?" I remember that it was perfectly appalling in the Parliament of 1919, 1920 and 1921, because, every time a question was asked about women, some ignorant person got up and said, "Why not put them into domestic service?" Bow I would long to put those people into domestic service!
That time has passed away now, and we know that unemployment benefit has nothing to do with it. The only way in which these girls are to be got into domestic service is by persuading them and training them. I hope, however, that the Government will take into consideration the large industrial areas, like Tyneside and South Wales, where there is now no industrial outlet for girls. In those areas, where girls have been
employed in industry, the slump has thrown thousands of them out of employment. I urge the Government not to be put off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knows very little about these social questions, and his judgment is always lacking. I am sorry he is not here. These girls are now out of work, and our great object is to try to get them into some work that they can do. The training centres to which I have referred have trained thousands of them, and have got them to see that domestic service can be an interesting job if they know their work; but we cannot force them, and it is a tremendous plunge for them to take.
I was talking to a woman who runs one of these centres only to-day, and she said she wished the House of Commons could realise what a tremendous plunge it is for some girls to go into domestic service. Take the case of those whose families have lived in industrial areas and have been factory people for generations. They have thought of life only from that point of view, and it is very difficult to get them to leave home, with its freedom—because, even if it is a crowded and poor home, there is a freedom there that you cannot get in domestic service. It is no good saying they are better off; man does not live by bread alone. You have to train them and get them used to it. When people talk about wanting to get men on to the land, let us see what the Government did. They found it very difficult to get men who had been raised in towns to go on to the land. See what they are spending on agricultural training to get men on to the land. It is far more than they have ever spent to get women into domestic service. I hope it will be agreed in ail quarters of the Committee that the Government should continue the grants for this training centre work, so that the people who are interested in these centres may not feel every moment that they will have to close down. I think the Government ought, certainly, for the cake of the women of the country, to do as much for them as they would do for the men.
I would remind the Committee that these courses are for three months, at a cost of £20 per head. Of this £20, £1 a week goes in maintenance, out of which the girl pays 3s. a week for uniform, so that the whole cost of the actual train-
ing is £7. At present there are 45 centres in existence and, comparing this with the six months' training given to unemployed young men for agricultural work, it will be seen how modest the demands for women are. The women who run these training centres are very enthusiastic, because they have seen girls come in rather timorous and rather prejudiced, very often from homes where it has been impossible for them to live in any really decent sort of way, and in these centres they have been taught to take a pride in their work and to take a pride in themselves. They have been encouraged, and the development has been enormous. This could never have gone on had it not been for the selfless and often unpaid work of those who run the centres, because, although they are paid a certain amount, the real work that they put in could never be paid for. They are personally interested in the girls, and they can testify to the enormous benefit the training has been to the girls who went there. The Parliamentary Secretary recently admitted that these centres have well justified themselves, and I hope, feeling the way he does, he will make a real fight. This is the only thing that is being done for the women, and we women of all parties ask that it should be put on a permanent footing. I hope the House will realise that I have never belonged to that section of the community who wish to forge women into domestic service. I do not believe in force of any kind, and the person who is out to force a man or woman to do anything—

Mr. J. JONES: What about Prohibition?

Viscountess ASTOR: I would not dare to get on to that, because I should be called to order, but I should like the people of this country to have a chance of saying what they think about it. I do not want to force anything. I hope the Minister of Labour will be firm and will fight the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this, always bearing in mind that this is no extravagant scheme. It is keeping women off the unemployment list. It is helping to train them, and doing what we hear so many public men talk about—"Why are not women more domesticated? Give them a chance to be more domesticated. This is a real chance, and I have no doubt the hon.
Lady opposite will back me up. This Government was put in largely by women. There is not a Member of the House of Commons who will not tell you that when it came to the Election the women were the ones to fight. The women are really doing a great deal of political work in all parties, and they have the right to demand of the Government they helped to put in that the only constructive scheme dealing with unemployment of women should not be cut down, but should be added to.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) was very sympathetic, and it wakened echoes of response in the minds of some of us. His great proposal seemed to be migration. Unfortunately you cannot migrate 100,000, or 1,000,000, unemployed workers. As far as our information goes about migration, it is a very expensive proposal indeed, not only for our own country, but for the Dominions at large. While the Dominions are anxious to have emigrants from this country, and while many of us would like to see some of our people go there, provided the conditions are, such as will induce them to go and will afford them a comfortable living when they get there, yet we have learned that the Dominions themselves find the charge so heavy that it is utterly impossible to take up a scheme to any large extent in that direction. Therefore we are pressed back on the necessity of solving the problem at home or doing what we can to relieve the distress of our unfortunate fellow creatures. The speech was sympathetic, as also was that of the hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandeman), but I am sure that if they read his remarks in his constituency, and if the local authorities pay any attention to them, they will be very much astonished, because when the Lancashire delegation came here on this matter, we who met them were told, amongst other things, that the Borough of Middleton itself, when these unemployment grants ceased, would be saddled with a rate of 10d. to meet the cost of the unemployed schemes.
We have been told during the last few months that the numbers of unemployed are decreasing, I sincerely hope that is the case, but will the hon. Gentleman kindly tell us into what trades or occupations these men are going? As far as
we have been able to find out, there is no appreciable difference in relation to any trade or industry of the country so far as the employment of new hands is concerned. If it is true that unemployment is decreasing, all the information some of us are receiving and all the reports in the newspapers are misleading. For instance, I have received from my own constituency this resolution:
Having regard to the constantly increasing number of able-bodied persons, the whole cost of whose maintenance is thrown upon the Guardians through their having ceased to become eligible for unemployment benefit, this board respectfully urges His Majesty's Government to recognise that the causes of the, great widespread unemployment are national in character, and to establish by legislation the principle that the expense of the support of the persons out of work shall be a charge upon the national funds.
This is the sort of resolution we are still getting, though we are being told every week that large numbers of men are disappearing from the unemployment roll. Some of us believe they are disappearing off the unemployment roll, but they are going on to another. In the borough in which I live the current rates for the half-year have gone up by 1s. 6d. in the £and all that has been, and is being utilised to meet the extra expense of the board of guardians, and even for the next half-year we have been informed in the papers that there is going to be a further increase. Therefore, I should like the Minister, not only to say that the numbers of men are decreasing, but to tell us, if he can, into what trades and occupations these people are going.
The next question I want to ask is this: Will he give us a definition of what "genuinely seeking work" means? I represent a constituency in which there is a variety of trades, and therefore I do not come up against the great difficulties of some of my friends who represent constituencies where the number of trades is not so great. Still I find men who are refused benefit on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment. Does this mean that they have day by day and week by week to go round the various workshops in the town asking the foreman or manager to sign some sort of form indicating that they have been looking for work? If that is what it means, in vulgar language it is a mug's game—an utterly foolish game. In fact, it is the very reverse of what Labour Exchanges were intended to be. When they were
first introduced, even before they became a Government concern, their main purpose was to direct a man to the place where he would find work. The main purpose was to do away with the man tramping from workshop gate to workshop gate and from dock gate to dock gate.
The very suggestion of the employment exchanges arose from the fact that those who had been studying our trade union history realised that some of us in the trade unions were making a profound mistake in sending our men on travel when they were out of work. We gave them what is known as a travelling card. We told them, as the Minister does, to go and look for work. We sent them further afield. They went from one place to another, and when they got there they found men like themselves out of work in that locality. The expense was wasted. The Employment Exchanges were really intended to do away with the necessity of sending a man tramping around looking for work. On the top of that, the foremen and managers of the various engineering shops are beginning to rebel at having to sign these notes guaranteeing that a man has been looking for work. I should like to know whether my interpretation of the expression "genuinely seeking for work" is right, and that it means going from shop gate to shop gate and from dock gate to dock gate daily or twice a week. If the hon. Gentleman will tell us that, we shall know what to do in the future.
The hon. Member, who introduced this discussion, referred to those leaving school, and to the young men of an early age who are unemployed. An interesting report came out the other day dealing with matters concerning those who find their way into our prisons. The Cardiff Prison Governor affirms most positively that the younger prisoners received are to a great extent the product of current economic conditions:
The present state of unemployment and housing produces a heavy toll of young prisoners, and the need of snore social effort by organisations reaching youths leaving school was never greater than at present.
What does the Ministry of Labour intend to do to stop this flow of young criminals as the result of unemployment? May I quote again? The Governor of Durham Prison says:
The unemployed boy of to-day will be the unemployable man and criminal of to-morrow.
Some of us know how difficult it is to deal with young people under any circumstances. It is much more difficult to deal with them when they are left to their own resources when they leave school, and it is much more difficult to deal with them when in. six, 12 or 24 months they have had to loiter about, never getting started in any kind of decent occupation. I should like to know whether the Government intend to do something in this direction, which will prevent this calamity of turning these young people into incapable citizens, into persons who are likely to be a danger to the community, and persons who would bring disgrace upon themselves and, possibly, on their families. If he will answer these questions I shall be very much indebted to him.
I have referred to statistics from a Lancashire local authority. They are very much concerned as to the future of this matter. The. Government are going to start curtailing these unemployment relief grants. This record says:
The undermentioned local authority will have to meet rates for unemployment relief which work out as follows.
They then give quite a large number of local authorities and show that from 9d. to 1s. 8d. will be the amount of rates they will have to find to pay for these schemes. It is very unfortunate that, at this time of day, we should still be in the position of not being able to do anything of material advantage to reduce more rapidly the number of people who are seeking employment, and, on the other hand, providing suitable sustenance for all those who are out of work through no fault of their own. I met the other day a gentleman from Australia. I do not know who is responsible for blackguarding the working classes of our country in the Dominions. He told me quite definitely that there were thousands of workmen in this country who would not work, and he was somewhat astonished when I asked him who gave him that information. He said that he had spoken to a gentleman. I asked him whether the gentleman was an employer of labour, and he replied that he was. I said, "Go back to him and ask him if he knows of anyone who will not accept work when it is offered, and if he says 'Yes,' ask
him if he has done his duty as a citizen and reported the matter to the Employment Exchange." That is the duty of an employer of labour. If he offers work which is available to a workman, which is under proper conditions, and the workman refuses the work, we know that he would be refused his benefit immediately. We do not believe that this statement is true, and I asked my friend to inquire. I have heard the same statement from other people at home. I have not met an employer of labour who has been able to substantiate such a statement. I have not met an employer in London or in my constituency who can substantiate the statement that there are men who will not accept work when offered work under proper conditions. That being so, it is about time we heard less of what my hon. Friend who introduced this discussion called the "dole." I was very glad to see a statement issued this morning in the Report of a Committee over which a former Member of this House, Sir Donald Maclean, presided. That Committee report:
The Committee declare that the use of the word 'dole' as a synonym for unemployment benefit has done much to obscure the fact that benefits paid during unemployment accrue by virtue of participation in an insurance scheme, and that in the majority of cases unemployment is the result, not of lack of energy or resourcefulness, but of prolonged trade depression.
I agree that that is so. It is for the Government to find ways and means of doing away with this trade depression, and to listen to the appeals made from time to time on behalf of those who are out of work through no fault of their own, and who are willing to work, but cannot get it. In these circumstances, they are entitled to receive out of the Insurance Fund, into which they have paid, and into which those who are at work are still paying—a Fund which has been amassed by their fellow-workers —a sufficiency for their needs in the time of their distress.
All the money which the Government advance to this Fund has to be repaid with interest. In these circumstances, we feel that those who talk about this Fund being a charge upon the nation should remember that the Fund is contributed partly by the employers, partly by the workmen and partly by the State,
and that the Fund should be available for those who are unfortunate enough to be out of work.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My object in rising is to try to reinforce some of the remarks made by hon. Member's opposite with regard to the expression—"Genuinely seeking employment." All of us, I imagine, must have encountered the same experience. Men have come to me or have written to me explaining that they cannot get employment and that a committee has decided that they are not genuinely seeking employment. In the area from which I come it is almost impossible for anyone to get any kind of employment except that connected with coal mining. It is clear that in places where the pits are not working it is almost impossible for the men connected with the pits to get any other kind of employment. Therefore, I beg the Minister in areas such as these to try to see whether the committees that are responsible for these decisions with regard to the men who seek employment could find work for them. Case after case has come to my notice where men really have done their best to get employment, but it has been impossible for them to get it within the area in which they live, yet the committee—I do not blame the Ministry because the committee is the responsible body—bas decided that the individual in question is not genuinely seeking employment. After a certain lapse of time the committee has changed its mind and the man has been put on the unemployment pry again. I will not go into individual cases because a great many of them have been given to-night, and the point is the same. What I want to do is to try to secure some better definition of the term "genuinely seeking employment," and some closer investigation in many cases where it is genuinely impossible for men to get employment.

Miss WILKINSON: Anyone who speaks in a Debate like this must feel that everything that can be said on the question of Employment Exchanges and the administration of benefit has been said in this Parliament 50 times over. All that we can do is to go on saying it over and over again. The main difficulty we are up against is the declared policy on the part of the Ministry of Labour to make the Fund solvent by turning off as many people as possible.
We may bring hard cases, we may bring up the case of women and the case of the distressed areas, but all the time we are up against the stone-wall attitude of the Ministry, that they have to cut down the number of people receiving benefit, either to make the figures look better or to have the Fund. It is a pity that the Minister of Labour in these circumstances does not make it clear to the queues of men outside the Employment Exchanges how hopeless it is for them to spend any time there, because they are wearing out shoeleather and breaking their hearts all the time, and they are finding that it is hopeless.
I would like to endorse what was said by the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) about women. The women are very resentful over their treatment. I would call attention to the fact that where in the case of men one in seven are disallowed benefit, in the case of women one in three are disallowed. Of the total number of applicants for benefit 33⅓per cent. of women are turned down. The average period of extended benefit granted to men is 12 weeks, compared with only four weeks granted to women. They are paying on the same terms as the men and yet the scales are weighted as heavily against them. For any woman to get extended benefit at the present time she has to he a thoroughly artistic liar. It is not the girl who can tell an artistic tale who is turned down. I have sat on rota committees, and I have seen over and over again the type of girl who gets the benefit. The girls who go into the workshop and who are unaccustomed to state their case and who do not understand the position find themselves, perhaps, faced by a chairman who very often bites their heads off as soon as they go into the room, or asks them impertinent questions. The girls get embarrassed and find themselves outside the room with their benefit disallowed before they know where they are.
These are not exceptional cases—any hon. Member could bring dozens of cases of this sort, and I should like the Minister to tell us why it is that the women are being discriminated against in this way. If they are single women, they are told that they must live with their relations. If they are married—our Lancashire
women are accustomed to earning their living, although married—they are told that they must live cm their husbands. On the very day that they ask for their standard benefit they are told that they are not genuinely seeking work. The position is becoming appalling. It is no use the Minister saying that certain Regulations were made by the previous Government. Those of us who are connected with Employment Exchange work know that the attitude adopted since this Government took office has been the worst of any Government. We know what the difficulties were under the last Government, but we did find then that it was possible to get justice done to the women. We know now that it is often no use trying to get justice done, because there is always the stone-wall attitude against us. The hon. Member for North Bristol (Colonel Guest) has suggested temporary emigration—a sort of solving the problem on the hire-purchase system. You dump down certain people overseas and you get them back if not suitable. Even for emigration purposes, the Minister of Labour is taking advantage of those who desire to emigrate in order to save money at their expense. I heard of the case of a woman recently who put clown her name for emigration, and when she went to draw benefit the next week she was told that, as she had put down her name for emigration, she was not available for employment and therefore not eligible for benefit under the Act. What is the use of encouraging people to emigrate in these circumstances? They may be kept for weeks waiting for their passage and for their ship. and they cannot live on nothing.
I should like to know something about the position of the training schemes for young people. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government gave much time and care to the question of these training schemes. At the present time these training schemes for young people are being starved, as are the training schemes for women. Is there any real economy in that? We are laying up for ourselves a terrible legacy for the future with regard to these young persons. It is much worse for the boys than for the girls, because in many cases the girls are able to help at home and to feel that they have their
place. The boys are at a very difficult period, when care, discipline and training are required. They are left to run about the streets and often are made to feel that they are not wanted. In many cases they are made to feel that they are not wanted at home, that they are a burden on the family exchequer. A growing lad from 14 to 20 will eat as much as his father; his needs are as great. There is nothing for him to do. One street in my constituency where the juvenile Employment Exchange is situated has always seemed to me the most tragic part of the whole of that tragic area. There one finds boys who have been four, five and six years away from school and who have never had a job. One can see the progressive deterioration of those boys.
The Minister of Labour at the time he passed his last Insurance Act took a very grave responsibility when he said these young persons should not get unemployment benefit. What does that mean? I know of case after case where the parents simply cannot afford to keep these lads at home. If they go out and live with neighbours and then go to the Employment Exchanges and say they are living in lodgings they are not able to get their insurance benefit. If ever there was a time when these lads and girls- should be at home under the supervision of their parents it is during this difficult period in their lives; and especially when they are not at work. These girls and boys are placed in a very serious position. The training schemes are ludicruously inadequate. They are starved of money, they are not extended, they are starved of equipment, and instead of settling down to a period of training these lads are sent on all sorts of odd jobs. It is impossible for the teacher to teach them anything, and all round there is a general feeling of uncertainty and insecurity which is the worst thing that could happen for these boys. I ask the Ministry to seriously consider whether this is real economy or whether they are not presenting the country with a very expensive lesson, the cost of which will have to be met in future years.
Then I want him to make the position clear with regard to the effect of this formula, "not genuinely seeking employment" on widows' pensions. We have not yet had this made clear. In the case
of a man who comes under the provisions relating to the prolongation of insurance benefit, that is, a man who has 80 stamps on his card previous to 1920, if he is out of work for more than two years and then dies, his widow gets benefit under the Widows' Pensions Act. But there are a number of men who do not come under those provisions, who have not had their 80 stamps, and I want to know what is the position of their widows? These men have been genuinely seeking work. They go before a rota committee, who say that they have not genuinely sought work, and then if such a man dies his widow does not get her pension. I have here the case of a man who does not come under the provisions relating to the prolongation of insurance benefit. He stood outside a factory, where certain jobs had been advertised, from three o'clock in the morning until eight at night in the hope of getting a job. It was wet and he got soaked to the skin. Owing to the terrible effects of unemployment on his physical constitution, he is now in bed with pneumonia. He may die, and I desire to know whether in those circumstances, having been unemployed for more than two years, his widow will lose her pension? This is a serious matter for literally hundreds and hundreds of people, and unless we can have some sort of assurance from the Minister, or some definite ruling on the point, a great deal of hardship may be suffered.
It would be a good thing if the Minister would rule out altogether this formula of "not genuinely seeking employment." In the Widows' Pensions Act it is laid down that the widow of a genuinely unemployed man will get her pension; but it is not made clear in that Act whether the widow of a man who is "not genuinely seeking work" will get her pension if he does not come under the provisions relating to prolongation of insurance benefit. There is no doubt that this formula of "not genuinely seeking work" is responsible for an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering. It puts a moral stigma on the man. If he is told that he cannot have his benefit because the Minister of Labour wants to save money, he knows where he is. If he is told he cannot have his benefit because he has not the requisite number of stamps, he knows where he is. But if he is told that he has committed this undefined crime of not genuinely seeking work and is not
told how he is to prove that he has been seeking work, the man is on the horns of a dilemna. If the Minister could cut this formula out altogether and go on the equally effective formula that it is not in the public interest he should have his benefit, he would do a great deal to take away some of the difficulties. You may starve the men, but do not insult them while you are doing it.

Mr. SKELTON: I am anxious to add one word to what has been said by so many hon. Members on the subject of the abuse of this formula, "not genuinely seeking work," and I propose to confine myself to the general topic that has been so fully dealt with hon. Members on both sides of the House—the general question of the very varying interpretations put upon the rule by the Committees. It so happens that in my own constituency I have had the case of the application of this rule about genuinely seeking work so clearly put before me that it would be improper not to mention it while the subject is under discussion this evening. It is on the following lines. A large group of men employed in the Tay Salmon Fishery rely for work from February to October upon such occupations as agriculture, and semi-agricultural work as they can pick up in the vicinity of the little villages in which they live. A very considerable number of these men—and I should be glad to have a definite reply from the Parliamentary Secretary on the case of these Tay salmon fishermen —have been treated with regard to their normal benefit, not as to their extended benefit, upon lines for which I can see no justification at all.
Between October and February their only chance of employment in the little country villages where they live is occasional agricultural work or some semi-agricultural occupation. A number of these men, I know from personal experience and also from communications, have tried their best to get the ordinary kind of work this winter which they have had in previous years. It does not cover the whole period of their unemployment between October and February. This year, largely owing to circumstances of weather, the ordinary agricultural operations have been impossible, and they have found it very hard to get employment. The Dundee Employment Committee,
under whose charge they are unfortunately placed—a city committee understands nothing about rural conditions—has informed them that they are not genuinely seeking employment. It is not true that they have not genuinely sought employment. It is quite true that they have not been able to find employment, and, if I were not entirely averse to the process of reading documents to the House, I could give chapter and verse for this. But it is not true that they have not been seeking employment. This is not a case of extended benefit; it is the normal benefit for which they have paid their weekly contributions. I have one particular case here—I am almost tempted to break the rule which I have just laid down and read it to the House. It is the case of a man who tells me that in the weeks immediately following the close of the salmon fishery he inquired persistently but unsuccessfully for no less than seven jobs. He lives in a small village where the number of jobs available is very small, and it is perfectly ludicrous to say that this hard-working man who has tried unsuccessfully no less than seven times to get work, is not genuinely seeking employment.
What I dislike about it is this. I can quite understand the policy in the case of extended benefit—that is on a different basis—but when you come to the normal guaranteed benefit it seems to me that the very greatest care should be taken not to accuse men of not seeking employment when it is perfectly well known that in fact they are. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Ministry have no power over the Committees. I am quite sure they have no legislative powers, but they have influence, and I recommend the Minister to warn the Unemployment Committees that on the question of not genuinely seeking employment the very greatest care should be exercised. I do not know that it really puts a stigma on a man, as has been said by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), but it does make a man feel that there is a lack of justice. He knows that he has been seeking employment, and that he would work hard if he could only get work. Just because he lives in a rural district where there are only a few odd jobs, and he has not found one at all, he is told that he is not seeking work.
I regard with the very greatest concern this growth—it is clear there is a growth—in the policy of cutting off the payment of their normal benefit on this specious plea. I regard that growth with the greatest dislike, and I urge the Minister to make it quite clear to the Unemployment Committees that they are not to play hanky panky tricks with this Rule. I cannot imagine anything more distressing and depressing for a man who wants employment, who has a wife and family to be told that just because the district in which he lives does not offer much employment, and because the employment he has sought he has not obtained, he is not seeking employment. I shall be far from satisfied if we are put off in public with the kind of reply I got in private.

6.0 P.M.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I wish to put a particular point to the Parliamentary Secretary, not because it arises in a single case, but because, from information which has reached me, I fear there may be many cases which under the present exercise of discretion by the Minister may be treated in the same way as the case of which I have actual information. This case, like the one dealt with by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) who has just spoken, deals with the claim to standard benefit, and it arises in circumstances which are not very uncommon. It arises in a case where a man has paid week by week, month by month, and year by year, contributions under the head of unemployment insurance—both his own contribution and the contribution which comes from the employer—so that there is standing to his credit in the fund a very substantial sum of money. He has kept his work for years on end, and, therefore, to that extent has a moral right to a very substantial benefit. Then the man falls ill, and falling ill, he is on that account away front work for quite a, substantial time—in the case before me for a year. It is a very necessary feature of the scheme that you cannot draw unemployment benefit if you are not in a condition to work. Possibly, although a man has paid for years his contributions towards unemployment benefit, when he ceases to be employed on the ground that he has fallen ill, he does not get unemployment benefit. It is quite right that he should not do so.
His right is a right to sickness benefit. But when the man gets well, perhaps after an interval of a year, and endeavours to resume his work, it often happens I am sorry to say, that the place is no longer open to him, and though he is able and fit to work he finds he cannot get work. What is the view that the Department takes as to the way in which that man should be treated in so far as the Department's discretion allows?
I have in my hands particulars of the actual incident which first called my attention to the matter, though I have made further inquiries since. It is the case of a man who paid unemployment contributions regularly from November, 1920, to the end of 1923. There is obviously a very substantial sum which has been provided, representing those three years of continuous work. There would be something like 150 or 160 weekly contributions. Then the man, at the end of 1923, fell ill and was not able to work for a year. Now that the year is up, he has been making great efforts to find work. He had light work for a short time, but he is not able to get the sort of work he seeks. No one suggests that he is a malingerer. None the less, though there is this large sum standing to his credit, on which he has never drawn to the extent of a single week's unemployment benefit, lie is told that he is not entitled to any unemployment benefit whatever, not even standard benefit. This was so surprising to me that I not unnaturally looked to see whether there was anything in the Statute or in the Regulations governing such a case. When I looked at the latest Regulations issued by the Ministry in respect of unemployment insurance, I found, under Head 16, this announcement:
Every claimant for benefit is required to satisfy the statutory conditions, first, that he proves that not less than 30 contributions have been paid in respect of him since the beginning of the first of the two insurance years next before the beginning of his benefit year. (During the period up to 30th June, 1927. this condition may be waived where the Minister thinks fit.)
The insurance year starts in July. In this man's case the two insurance years would be from July, 1923, to July, 1924, and from July, 1924, to July, 1925. This man, who has been paying week by week to the Unemployment, Fund for years and has never drawn a single week's unemploy-
ment benefit, was unfortunate enough to fall ill in the first of these two insurance years, in December, 1923. The result is that in that year he has the weekly contributions to the Unemployment Fund for only a comparatively few months. Then he dropped out of work. In the second year the poor fellow has not had any occasion to make contributions to the Fund because he has not been employed. He is now being told by the officials of the Department that he is not entitled to get a single week's unemployment benefit, notwithstanding that he has contributed year by year for years and has never drawn a single week's benefit, because 30 contributions have not been paid in respect of him since the beginning of the first of the two insurance years next before the beginning of his benefit year. I cannot believe that that is the real intention of the Department, or indeed the policy which was ever intended by Parliament to be pursued. Let me point out that under the Consolidating Act of 1920 there was a provision in Section 8, Sub-section (4)—
Where no contributions are paid in respect of any person during any insurance year, he shall, unless the non-payment of contributions was due to his being sick, be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit until twelve contributions, exclusive of any contributions paid in respect of him before that year, have been paid in respect of him under this Act.
Therefore, it is quite plain that you may construe the intentions and policy of Parliament, as common sense would suggest, that a man does not lose his right to draw out from the very fund which he has been creating for years merely because in addition to the misfortune of not being able to work, he has fallen ill. Yet under the Regulations of the Ministry I read that a claimant for benefit will not get any, not even standard benefit, whatever may be the number of contributions he has made in the past, unless within the last two insurance years 30 contributions have been paid in respect of him, and that his only opportunity for relief is that during the period up to 30th June, 1927, this condition may be waived when the Minister thinks fit.

Mr. BETTERTON: The part in question of Section 8, sub-section (4), of the Act of 1920, was repealed by the Act of 1924.

Sir J. SIMON: If you please. Are we to understand that it is the view of the Ministry, now that they have a discretion to deal with this matter, instead of having this put upon them as a statutory duty, to exercise the discretion by saying to a man who has never drawn any unemployment benefit at all, after contributing to the Fund for years: "Now, we have you. Because there is no Statute which says that you are entitled to have a period of sickness, and since it is within our discretion, we propose to refuse you a single week's benefit"? I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot seriously hold to that proposition. I am an old stager on this subject, but am a bit rusty now. If this unfortunate man were to die to-day the Act provides, or it used to do so, that his executors would be entitled to get out from the Fund so much of the contributions in respect of him as have not been used in paying unemployment benefit in his lifetime. [HON MEMBERS: "No. When he reaches 60!"] I am obliged for the information. If he reaches the age of 60, under the original Act, it was the case that he was entitled to say: "I am a person who has contributed week by week against a risk. You have had my money and invested it, and now that I have never drawn out the equivalent of what I contributed there ought to be some adjustment in my case."
Let me put a question. Surely it cannot be the view of the Ministry of Labour that a man who is not only a decent workman but has succeeded in keeping his job for years, who has never on any occasion drawn out any benefit, is none the less to be told that in the discretion of the Ministry he is not entitled to get any benefit, because, forsooth, he fell sick and was unable to work for a year or a year and a half. That is the result in this case. Though I do not at all wish to take up the case simply as an individual case, yet it appears to me to raise a point of very considerable general importance, which I would invite the Minister most carefully to consider. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it is not the view of himself and of the Minister of Labour—whose absence for such an unfortunate reason we all deplore—that a man should suffer because, though he has contributed for so long, there is inter
posed a period of sickness before the time comes when he can call for benefit under the heading of "Unemployment Benefit."
Of course, Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance were always so arranged that if the contributor was a man who was entitled to draw sickness insurance, because he was not fit to work but was ill, it was on that side that he got the benefit. And, of course, he had paid for that too. Therefore, it is necessarily the case that, as long as a workman is away from work because he is ill, he cannot draw unemployment benefit. It seems to be a preposterous conclusion that a man who has been contributing all these years, and never exhausted his rights for a week, should be told that the fact that he has fallen ill for a substantial period of time—is, in the view of the Ministry, which has a discretion a reason for saying that he is to be refused a single week's unemployment benefit.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I had not intended to intervene at this juncture, but the remarks of the last speaker have induced me to say something in reply to him. I find that during the Debates on unemployment the present Government are largely saddled with the excesses and imperfections of the Act of 1924. The statement we have just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) bears considerably on the point. I gather that he complains that a person who has contributed regularly to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and has recived no benefit, and who for a certain period fell ill, is practically precluded from the two years next before the beginning of his benefit year. According to the Rules, the statutory conditions apply both to standard and extended benefit, but, according to the Act, the conditions apply only to standard benefit. The Regulation controlling that matter is that at least 20 contributions must have been paid in respect of the claimant at the beginning of the insurance year next before the beginning of his benefit year. That is for standard benefit.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that is the test now. I think the test now is 30 benefits over two years.

Mr. BETTERTON: I was 10th to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking, but I
was then under the impression that he was mistaken. Now my impression is confirmed. The obligation under the power which has been exercised by my right hon. Friend is 30 contributions at any time, or in the alternative eight during the last two insurance years. Therefore, the case he mentions is covered, though I will gladly go into it with him.

Mr. THOMPSON: There seems to be considerable misconception and confusion in this matter. The condition that 30 contributions must have been paid in respect of the man at the beginning of the first of the two insurance years next before the beginning of the benefit year was necessarily imposed by the introduction of the 1924 Act, and it was due primarily and imperatively to the fact that the demarcation between the conditions for covenanted and uncovenanted benefit had entirely broken down with the 1924 Act. Therefore, if certain conditions had not been set up for extended benefit, you would necessarily have had non-contributors drawing benefit on the same basis as standard benefit. Among the four conditions which were laid down, this is the first statutory condition with which a person must comply, and as a matter of fact the waiver was only until October of last year. This Government extended the waiver, and had that waiver not been extended it is possible that 250,000 insured persons might have been disallowed benefit under the 1924 Act. It is only fair to say that the Ministry under the present Government, acting with very laudable discretion, waived the qualification of the 30 and accepted the eight contributions, and the result is that the period has been extended. I think the case mentioned would come under that category, and that if the man has eight stamps he would then qualify for extended benefit.
I have not been able to participate in or to hear much of the Debate to-day, but I judge that, as on other occasions, there have been—I will not say recriminations—but some unfair visitations on the present Ministry in connection with the administration of the present Act. To a large extent, the difficulties of the administration at present are due to the 1924 Act, and the Percentage of disallowances is largely, if not entirely, due to that Act. I have
been interested to make an analysis of the figures, and the completed returns, both as regards my own constituency and as regards the whole country, reveal the fact that while there have been considerable disallowances under the 1925 Act, the disallowances under the 1924 Act average about 70 per cent. of the total. This is due largely to the conditions applied to the administration under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). The greatest hardship felt at present in regard to extended benefit arises from two reasons, the first of which is that Regulation providing that the applicant must have been making every reasonable effort to find work. I have many times heard Members of the Opposition strongly condemn that statutory Regulation, but I would remind them that it is due to the 1924 Act, which was passed when their party was in office. Further, it was due to the fact that there was a need to regulate and safeguard expenditure.
If hon. Members look it up, they will find that the Regulations issued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston in connection with the 1924 Act contained this specific condition relating to extended benefit, namely, that the claimant must be making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capabilities. The Regulations and instructions issued by the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this condition was of supreme importance and was intended to ensure that every applicant for extended benefit was a genuine seeker for employment. It was also explained that the claimant must show to the satisfaction of the Committee that he was
genuinely and at the particular date of claiming, taking all possible steps to obtain any employment for which he might reasonably be regarded as suited.
An interpretation of the word "reasonably" is given later on by the right hon. Gentleman, who says that the burden of proof that this condition has been fulfilled rests upon the claimant, and the expression that he is "genuinely and at the particular date of claiming" seeking employment, is said to mean that the Committee must be satisfied that the claimant, since becoming unemployed, had been continuously seeking work. That is the difficulty. The Committee are bound to interpret these expressions
according to the instructions, and a man who has been out of work for one or two or perhaps even three years has the utmost difficulty in complying with the Regulation laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, that the word "genuinely" should be interpreted as meaning continuously seeking for work.
While statements may be made to the effect that the administration of these Acts has been somewhat tightened up, it is only fair to make these facts known. I know that the local committees administering this most difficult legislation are composed of representative trade unionists, together with masters, and I believe, generally speaking, it is administered with fairness, and with a desire to avoid inflicting undue hardship on those who apply for benefit.

Mr. CAPE: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) was not in the Committee during the whole of this Debate. He admitted himself that he was not here all the time, but he assumed that recriminations had been hurled at the Minister by hon. Members on this side.

Mr. THOMPSON: I did not suggest that there had been recriminations to-day. When I have been here I have heard reflections on the Ministry in this respect.

Mr. CAPE: Therefore the hon. Member came to the conclusion that the same thing had happened to-day. He is quite mistaken. I have been here during the whole of the Debate, and I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of this matter will agree that there have been no recriminations, and that nothing of an unkind nature has been said.

Mr. BETTERTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. CAPE: The hon. Member for Sunderland then proceeded to change the whole issue of this Debate, and instead of directing his attention to the present adminstration, he placed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) in the dock, and hurled recriminations at him. In regard to the question of "genuinely seeking employment," he says that this condition was included in the 1924 Act. One is not going to dispute that statement, but the
1925 Act gives the Minister a right of discretion and the power which the rota committees enjoyed under the 1924 Act has now gone. Therefore, if a rota committee comes to the conclusion that certain men have been genuinely seeking employment, and decides that those men are entitled to receive benefit, those cases can he turned down. The rota committees can only recommend, and their recommendations are generally turned down.

Mr. THOMPSON: No.

Mr. CAPE: My hon. Friend says that is not so, but I will draw attention to a fact which may enlighten him. Some months ago in the district which I represent, the rota committees refused to function because they felt their work was of no benefit to the applicants. They said unless they had a guarantee that their investigations would be of some use, they were not going to waste their time in recommending cases which were afterwards turned down. They continued to sit under protest, and I am glad to say that there has been an inquiry, an official of the Department has been sent down, and satisfactory arrangements have been made with the result that now the committees are functioning as usual. In regard to this question of "genuinely seeking employment." I have here a letter from a board of guardians, not in my own Division, but in the county from which I come. This letter is not inspired by any spite or vindictiveness against the Government, because this board is largely constituted of members who are of the same political beliefs as the present Government—I think only five of them are members of the Labour party. They write:
I am directed by my board to send you a copy of a letter they have sent to the Minister of Labour and to the secretary of the local employment committee, dealing with the question of applications by men for unemployment benefit, and the treatment meted out to them, and they request you to be good enough to interest yourself in the matter in the manner indicated in the said letter.
The letter is as follows:
My board, in dealing with applications for out-relief by several men who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit, find that in several cases such benefit has been withdrawn on the ground that the employment committee are doubtful whether the men are making a reasonable effort to
obtain employment, and upon referring to the communication sent by the committee to such men, find that the wording of Clause 4 of Form U1 503A has been altered from the committee consider you have failed to prove that you are making every reasonable effort to obtain employment,' etc., to 'the committee are doubtful whether you are making every reasonable effort to obtain employment,' etc., and they are strongly of opinion that in any such cases where the committee are only doubtful as to the efforts of the men to obtain employment, such applicants should have the benefit thereof, and unemployment benefit should be continued until the committee are really satisfied that the applicants have not been making every reasonable effort to obtain employment. In consequence of the men being deprived of their unemployment benefit at a time when they cannot procure work, they are compelled to apply to the guardians for out-relief, the burden being shifted from the State and placed upon the local rates, and my board protest most strongly against this procedure.
The board that wrote that letter has the least unemployment to deal with of any board in Cumberland, and that board is crying out because the burden has been removed from the State on to the local rates. In the area which I have the honour to represent, in the industrial portion of Cumberland, we have had iron and steel workers working intermittently since 1921 till the present time, large numbers of miners and other workers have been unemployed, and we have found that every week cases are being turned down, so rapidly and in such quantities, by the Unemployment Committee or by the Department that our boards of guardians are feeling the strain so keenly that it will not be long before they find themselves in a dreadful position and probably absolutely on the verge of bankruptcy.
In regard to the question of genuinely seeking employment, another thing that the men have to comply with is the condition that "they are not likely to be employed in an insurable trade." I want to quote a certain instance from my own constituency, where there was employment in one portion of it in iron ore mines, but in that particular locality the mines are worked out, and the men hale now to travel long distances to work in coal mines or other iron ore mines. Men of 60 or over in that area cannot get work, because there is no other class of work to do. When they go to these other mines to compete with the younger men, they are generally turned down, and when they go to the. Employment
Exchanges they are turned down again, because it is specified on their papers that they are not likely to be employed in an insurable occupation. I have seen One or two cases where an applicant has been turned down for a rather curious reason, and that is that it is not in the public interest that, he should be paid. I suggest that the Act has been bad enough, but that the Regulations that have followed the Act have made it practically impossible for the local committees and the people on the spot to give decisions that are of any advantage to the applicants. I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland that the men who generally fulfil the office of rota committee men are men of experience, both the employers and the workmen, and, generally speaking, I believe they give every consideration to the cases that come before them. But what is the use? If they give a. decision in favour of the applicants, they find that all their work has been in vain and that the decision is turned down by the Ministry of Labour or one of the other Departments.
In regard to men who have been on compensation, in mining we have a certain disease that men contract in very large numbers—miners' nystagmus. After the men have been off work for a few weeks, or it may be months, generally speaking, the medical officers who examine them come to the conclusion that they are fit for light employment, and they generally specify that on no consideration must it be underground again, while sometimes they say the men must not be employed where there is machinery or any likelihood of dust. They are practically confined to a very narrow radius of occupation, and their limits are so narrowed down that these men find it very difficult to get employment of any kind, but although these men have been certified by a medical man to be fit for some light employment, we are finding to-day that they are being turned off repeatedly from unemployment benefit, and they naturally ask where they have to go. They are told they must go to the board of guardians, and the board of guardians promptly turns round and says: "if you are suffering from miners' nystagmus, you ought to go on compensation, and the man is going in a circle all the time, and, generally speaking, is suffering from the pangs of hunger. I suggest to the Parlia-
mentary Secretary that all these difficulties that have been enumerated this afternoon were pointed out from this side of the House while the present Act was passing through the House. As a matter of fact, the anomalies have come out more pronounced than we ever dreamed they would do. I remember saying certain things myself, and I was rather doubtful of them, but I regret to say that those statements have proved only too true, and I suggest that the time has come when the Minister has either got to give us a Bill that will give more generous advantages to the unemployed than does the present Act, or, during the period in which he may be framing a new Bill, he ought, as far as possible, to lift the embargo on committees and give them a freer hand to come to decisions in accordance with the local circumstances, which they know so well.
One could go on pointing out many other things, but other hon. Members wish to speak, so that my last word will he this: I want to say, with all sincerity, and not from a spirit of recrimination, that I would warn the hon. Gentleman that he ought to take his mind back to 1922. Then there was an oppressive Unemployment Act, and the ultimate result was that you found large bodies of men travelling from town to town, protesting against the inadequacy of the maintenance made for them by the then Unemployment Act. I believe that we are coming to that state of affairs again. It cannot be expected that these young men will go on all the time in the manner in which they are going on to-day, finding themselves outcasts practically, and told that they are not genuinely seeking employment and that they are not entitled, because there is a certain income going into the house, to benefit. We find these young men getting very discontented and dissatisfied, and we have to realise, as Members of this Assembly, that the youth of this country is made of the same spirit to-day as was the youth of the country in the years 1914–1918. They will not stand all the penalties and hardships you may put upon them without resenting it in a. way that none of us would like to see, and I want to plead with the Minister to direct his attention to these questions. I hope he will be able to give us more
encouragement that something different is going to be done towards solving this question of maintenance for these men, apart from the question of providing work, which I will leave to abler minds than mine to deal with.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I wish to address the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to one part of the Act, and one part only, that is the part which speaks of misconduct as a disqualification from benefit. In ascertaining or endeavouring to ascertain what constitutes misconduct, it is the habit of the Ministry to send forms to employers asking them for information as to whether or not an applicant has misconducted himself.

Mr. BETTERTON: Of which Act is the hon. and learned Gentleman speaking?

Sir H. SLESSER: I am speaking of the general habit of the Ministry in ascertaining under the principal Act whether a person has or has not misconducted himself. The normal procedure, as I understand it, is that under the Acts generally, and under Regulations, forms are sent to employers to find out whether the conduct of an applicant has or has not been satisfactory. Those forms are filled up by employers, and they are received by the Ministry, which frequently acts upon those forms without any further inquiry at all. If an employer chooses to state that a man's conduct has been unsatisfactory, and that is the reason why he has left his employment, in many cases on that mere notification alone the insurance officer will say that that man is not entitled to benefit. I want to call attention particularly to a certain case which has come to my notice. In the city which I represent a man, an insured contributor, was dismissed because he refused to drive a heavy motor lorry at a speed exceeding the speed limit, which is 12 miles an hour, and he applied for unemployment benefit. The employers notified the insurance officer that he had been dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct, his right to benefit was denied, and his case was rejected by the insurance officer. He appealed, and his employers repeated the statement that he had been dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct. It is true that they did not appear before the court of referees to substantiate their case, and ultimately his unemployment benefit was given to him.
I want to ask the Minister whether any real test is made, when employers state that men have misconducted themselves, or not conducted themselves in a satisfactory manner, to find out why they say that, on what evidence, and what are the facts on which they rely. There are, unfortunately, in this country malicious employers, spiteful employers, men suffering from various kinds of what they imagine to be grievances against their workers, and it is a very serious thing if a person can irresponsibly fill up one of these forms and deprive a man of benefit without a real and searching inquiry being made by the Ministry before they come to a decision. I suggest that no officer of the Ministry of Labour ought to refuse unemployment benefit to a man on a more unsworn statement, on one of these little brown pieces of paper, from an employer, before making an investigation to see whether or not what the employer legs said is true. I have no doubt many of my hon. Friends who will follow in this Debate, and many hon. Members on the other side, if they could speak what is in their minds in this matter, as some already have, would say that in their experience many employers have been quite reckless and careless, if not worse, in making these statements. If you examine the Act itself, it was never contemplated tint the employer should occupy so important a position as a kind ofex parte Judge in deciding whether a man should have unemployment benefit or not. I am not denying the right of the Ministry to make inquiries, but I am suggesting that when the employer has answered in a manner unfavourable to the applicant, it is the duty of the Ministry, not to dismiss the man's case, but to make further inquiries. In case after case up and down the country the Ministry have, on the mere statement of an employer, turned a man down and made no further inquiries at all.
The whole situation is profoundly unsatisfactory. The Court of Referees, which is supposed to act more or less in a judicial manner, has no power to call employers before them. It has no power to test the validity of what the employer says. If the employer does not come to the Court of Referees, the Court is left completely in the dark as to whether it is true or untrue, and when, finally, the case does come on for hearing, the Court
may or may not choose to believe what the employer has said, when he has not taken the trouble to come before the Court and substantiate his case. Of course, in a case where it is clear that the employer has acted without. sufficient care, and where he has not supported his accusation, it may be the benefit may be paid. But the injury has been done to the man, and the injury is irremediable. Therefore the Ministry ought to he very careful in these inquiries.
I want to press the point that a regulation should be drafted or an administrative order made, that when the inquiry is put to an employer, "Is there anything in the nature of misconduct or unsatisfactory action on the part of the applicant?" and the employer says there is, that should not be the end, but the beginning of an inquiry into the facts, and in no case should an insurance officer refuse a man benefit merely because one of these forms has been filled up. If the employer fills up a form and puts the Ministry on an inquiry, there can be no complaint. If he says, "I have no reason to say that this man should be disqualified from benefit," there is an end of the matter. If he likes to take the responsibility of saying that the man's conduct is unsatisfactory, then that should be the beginning of the matter, and not the end, and in no case should it be justifiable for any insurance officer to reject a claim merely because of an employer's statement. That is the point I wish to stress, and I hope we shall get an assurance, that whenever such investigation is made in the future, that will be the beginning and not the end of the inquiry into a man's case.

Mr. JOHN: I wish, in the first instance, to emphasise the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) with regard to workmen in the mining industry who are suffering from nystagmus. I do not think it should be confined to men suffering from nystagmus, because men who are incapacitated through injuries in the course of their employment come under the same category. What was the position of those men prior to the War, or during the period of the War? Whenever men suffered from nystagmus, or received an injury which only partially incapacitated them, in consequence of the normal state of unemployment those men were
generaly taken back into the industry. But now, because of the abnormal conditions, it is impossible for these men to be employed in that industry. I am under the impression that the Unemployment Insurance Act is to meet abnormal cases of unemployment. If that be so, and these men are unable to get employment because of the abnormal conditions, then, logically and reasonably, these men are entitled to unemployment benefit. The men go to Court, and the Judge decides they are only partially incapacitated, say, up to 15 per cent. or 25 per cent., and are able to do a reasonable amount of work. In the mining industry it is impossible for these men to be employed, unless they are able to compete generally with the able-bodied men. To that extent, their opportunities for employment are very restricted. They only get 8s. or 10s. a week, as the case may be, in compensation, but, owing to the fact that they are incapacitated to some extent, the decision of the rota committee, the insurance officer, and, ultimately, the Ministry of Labour, is such that it debars these people from receiving the unemployment benefit.
I have not so much cause to complain with regard to the decisions of the rota committees as others who have been complaining in the course of the Debate. Indeed, my complaint is that the Ministry interferes with the decisions of the rota committees, and that the insurance officers, who know nothing at all about the local conditions, interfere with decisions that have already been arrived at by the rota committees. I remember on several occasions during Debates in the House on this question the Minister twitting this side of the House with regard to the position of the rota committees, because there are representatives of Labour upon those committees, and that whenever any complaint was raised from this side of the House against the decision of a rota committee, we were raising a, complaint against the decision of men who believed the same as we do, who were looking after the interests of the working class to the same extent that we were, that, therefore, it was unfair on our part to raise any complaint at all against the rota committee, and that, so far as the Minister himself and his Department were concerned, they invariably accepted
the decision of that committee. Unfortunately, the Ministry have not consistently carried out that policy. During the past four or five months, several rota committees have arrived at decisions agreeing, say, that a man has been genuinely seeking employment, and that lie is entitled to receive benefit. The insurance officer comes along, and holds up that decision. The man has to wait three, four or five weeks, and sometimes fails to get the operation of the decision of the rota committee.
Surely, if anybody ought to know the local conditions, it is the rota committee. Take the mining industry in a one-industry area. It is useless for a workman to go from one colliery to another colliery in order to seek employment, because there are workmen unemployed at each particular colliery. The rota committee know the local conditions, and have given a much broader interpretation to the meaning of "genuinely seeking work," or, at least, have laid down certain lines upon which the interpretation ought to be based. It will be very interesting to hear the reply of the hon. Gentleman to the question as to the real interpretation of "genuinely seeking employment." Take the practice adopted by the rota committee. In the area from which I come, every man has got to produce, every time he comes before the rota committee, a list of the number of places he has been daily seeking work. Sometimes a man will present a list of from 30 to 50 names, according to the time that has elapsed since the committee sat previously. The man has written evidence of his efforts to get employment. The list is handed in, and the committee decade, upon the evidence produced, that the man has been genuinely seeking employment. The insurance officer comes along, and decides against him. I maintain that the rota committee should be the deciding factor upon the lines which we have been told is the case on numerous occasions. If the rota committee, who know the local conditions, the people and the circumstances, and who have realised the difficulties of finding employment, comes to a decision, we have got to accept it from our side, and the Ministry should accept it as well, and the insurance officer should not have a right to interfere with that decision.
In those particular areas where the mining industry is the only industry, or the important industry, the extent to which these people are denied the right to unemployment benefit has a direct bearing upon the creation of unemployment. The collieries are very heavily rated at the present time, and can least afford to bear an additional burden. If there be an increase in the poor rate in an area where the rate is already anywhere about 8s. in the £—and, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, them are a number of collieries that can ill afford to work at the present time— to that extent you are increasing the burden upon those collieries. The natural effect of avoiding payment of unemployment benefit to a number of unemployed is the creation of more unemployment, and, therefore, an increased amend upon the Unemployment Fund itself, and an additional charge upon the poor rate. It is, therefore, a false economy, and inasmuch as we have been discussing an Economy Bill during the last two nights, I think it would be well for the representative of the Department really to consider this question in the light of the impracticability of an increase of rates in these particular localities, in order to evade the due obligation of paying unemployment benefit to those who have been paying for years under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. WHITELEY: During the course of this Debate, certain speeches have been made as to how to reduce the number of unemployed workpeople in this country, and I was interested to hear the suggestion Of the hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandeman), that if we could get rid of the left wing of the Labour party all would be well. He suggested that but for those people, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have an opportunity, at some future date, of being able to secure some large addition to his depleted fund from the contributions paid by the workmen and employers to this Unemployment Insurance Fund. May I remind hon. Members such as he, that there is another side to this story, and it is this: We have a very large firm in our county to-day who are refusing to put into operation what he calls harmonious co-operation between employer and employed. We have a large firm where there has been
a trade dispute for some months. There were 10 points in dispute. Eight of them have been agreed to by the workmen. Another one has been agreed to by both sides, and on the tenth the employers refuse to be harmonious in their co-operation and demand their real pound of flesh. In consequence, there are three or four thousand workmen, with their wives and families, who are on this Unemployed Fund who could be relieved, to a large extent, if the Tory Government would impress on the employers the desirability of putting into operation, and not talking so much about, that harmonious co-operation.
The hon. Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) made a suggestion to the Government. He said the importance of emigration had probably not been fully realised, and ho suggested that, either temporarily or permanently there should be some arrangement between this country and the Dominions for the purposes of reducing the number of unemployed people in this country. That is a very dangerous suggestion. I can foresee, as I have already seen in my own Division, that the best type of people is the only type who are going to be of any value to the Dominions. That makes this country's position more serious, because she would be left with the aged and the infirm. We are going to be in a serious position if you do not examine that position carefully.
I want to draw attention to one or two points in the Estimates. There is an increase in the local employment committees of £5,250. I would have been more satisfied if that figure had been e reduction by £5,250, because the whole administration of the local employment committees in this country under the present Government has become worse week by week. There ought not to be an increase in the money allowed in these Estimates for local employment committees, because the Department itself is taking the whole of the work from these committees, so far, at least, as my area is concerned. They are reversing the decision from time to time of those committees, while saying that they place absolute confidence in them. There is going on a process—on which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have something to say—under which recipients et benefit are being called before officials of the Employment Exchanges the day
before they are asked to appear before the rota committee. They have to answer the same questions before the officials of the Exchange as they have to answer next day before the rota committee. The officials are putting them through this process, and practically coining to their own decision without allowing the rota committees to put into operation their own ideas.
We have another situation arising. The rota committees are now refusing to accept certificates supplied to workmen by firms to whom they have been to seek work. They are saying as an excuse that various firms in our locality are prepared to give certificates to men seeking work simply as a matter of course, without making any definite inquiry. That is placing the unemployed person in a most awkward position. What is he to do? The Ministry of Labour say they turn him down because he is not genuinely seeking work. When fie does genuinely seek work, the officials say, "We cannot accept this, because the firms in the localities do not take proper precautions to see that the men are seeking work." The right hon. Gentleman should see that our people in those areas have a straight deal under this Unemployment Insurance Act. They pay their contributions under the law. We Have certain men who have been connected with collieries that are supposed to be taking part in a trade dispute. These men got work under local councils or with some neighbouring firm. They work for a number of weeks and then apply again for unemployment benefit. They are refused, although they have made statements to the effect that they do not intend to go back to their original employments. They are refused benefit because they have once been connected with a colliery or firm who have a trade dispute which has not been settled. That is a very unfair process for our people to have to undergo.
An hon. Member opposite suggested that the Minister of Labour had no power over these committees. He was complimenting the Minister on the fact that the committees knew the whole circumstances and gave their decision on the local evidence, and said that, as a. matter of course, the Minister of Labour accepted this kind of thing. Unfortunately, our experience is quite
different. We have quite a large number of cases, one of which is as follows. A man who had worked regularly at a colliery for over 30 years, and was an exceptionally good and efficient workman, was unfortunate in that he had to be dismissed with a batch of men owing to slackness of trade. He endeavoured to secure work at various places in the locality and eventually the rota committee turned him down, because they said there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he had bean genuinely seeking work. Of course, he thought the treatment was exceedingly severe, and he endeavoured to get his case brought before what is called the complaints committee. The complaints committee, on the same evidence on which the rota committee had turned him down, agreed that he was entitled to benefit. Yet the Minister of Labour, in his final decision, backs up the rota committee as against the complaints committee. We have that kind of thing going on from time to time.
I have complaints from urban district councils in my own area that because of the present administration by the Ministry of Labour of the Unemployment Insurance Acts their position is being made extremely difficult. They quote, in a letter to me, the case of one man of 20 years of age who finished working on 8th September, 1925, received benefit for a fortnight, and was then told his benefit was stopped on the ground that there were other members of the household working. The question for the Minister of Labour under the Act, so far as I can follow it, is whether the man is entitled to benefit, and not whether there are any members of the household working. The Act does not state that a man is not entitled to benefit because there are one or two members of the same family working. The Act is to provide a man with Unemployment Benefit provided he is an insured person with the correct amount of contributions, until such time as he can find work or work can be found for him. I notice in the Estimates an item referring to a reduction of the Government allowance under the Unemployment Insurance Act of£1,395,000. I assume that this is in connection with the economy campaign. Rather than reducing the Government grant under the Unemployment Insurance Acts at the present time.
there ought to be some little addition given, in order that people might receive proper treatment under the Act. We have, in our county, a case of one large firm where men in reality should be receiving benefit under this Act but are not. Why? Because the men have given way on certain points, and the manager again is refusing, in this particular instance, to give a guarantee to the workmen that when the pits resume they will be absorbed before strangers. Because of than we have five collieries where men arc not receiving benefit to which they are entitled.
There is another point in the Estimates. There has been a reduction in the industrial training of disabled ex-service men of £534,848; in
"other training" there has been a reduction of£900; and for grants for re-settlement in civil life there has been a reduction of£27,000. Actually for the training of people for occupational work in this country there has been a reduction of £562,748. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to the Committee what is the Government's present policy with regard to life training centres that they established some time ago. These training centres, I understood, were for the purpose of training our people, particularly our ex-service men, to make them efficient for work which would be useful to this country and to themselves in particular. I know that there was a statement made some time ago in this House with regard to the policy of training these men for the purpose of sending them overseas. Even if it be the policy of the Government that those training centres should be used for the purpose of sending unemployed persons or unemployed ex-service men overseas, it seems to me to be a tremendous reduction—£562,000 — when the Government have themselves said from time to time that this is useful work.
The Government seem to me to-day to be barren of suggestions. They refuse every suggestion we put forward on this side of the House either in the shape of appeals or anything else. We have ideals expressed by one or two hon. Members, but they do not get us very far. The only other suggestion we have is the sending of our people overseas and breaking up the family life of this country as far as they possibly can. This Vote to-day
is not justified, because the Government have shown very clearly that they are not capable of dealing with the situation that is so vitally important to this country. We have resolutions from urban district councils all over the place pointing out that they themselves are prepared to take on the responsibility of finding work for our unemployed people in these various areas. They are prepared to take on that responsibility if the Government will give them an opportunity of doing so. They have given them very definite schemes which will absorb the unemployed men in various areas in useful and beneficial work. They are turned down by the Ministry of Labour; they are turned down by the Ministry of Transport, or by the Unemployment Grants Committee, who say that owing to the economy campaign no further grants can be given for this purpose. We want to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Government, what is their definite policy —not the policy of removing men from the unemployed list and putting them out of benefit. We are very well aware of that policy—but what is the policy in the future with regard to finding different permanent avenues of work, so that men may be absorbed in useful occupations in their own country.

Mr. HARDIE: The difficulties that have in this matter are real difficulties coming from the discretionary powers of the Minister of Labour. The purpose of the discretion given to the Minister of Labour means that he can suspend the Act or any part of the Act in order to carry through what he wishes. It was pointed a few weeks ago that it was possible for the Minister of Labour, by his discretionary powers, to prevent the payment of fully paid-up standard benefit, and to-day the Committee realises that the Act can be so far set aside by the discretion, that was not in the Act itself, but by the discretion of the Minister. It is these discretionary powers that are giving all the trouble. Outside of them we can get down to the Acts, and to Regulations, but. whenever you go into these spheres where the discretionary powers of the Minister intervenes, then you have no Act or Regulations to guide you. You are in the sphere of the discretion of the Minister of Labour.
Take the cases that have been brought before the rota committees. Hon. Members take the trouble in some cases to investigate these personally in their own constituencies. What do they find? They find that even members of the rota committees arc thoroughly of the belief that there are secret instructions being sent out, although that is denied by the Minister of Labour. Every time I go to my constituency I meet the men who sit on the rota committees, and they try to convince me that there is some secret methods of dealing with several of the cases that they have had. But I want to touch upon the point of the income of the home. I want to ask the Minister, or rather the Parliamentary Secretary, If he thinks what occurs is at all fair that the young men of a family who are looking forward to getting married, or it may be to doing something else with their money. I would ask him if he thinks it is fair that the national responsibility towards unemployment should be so withheld as to compel what is called the thrift of an individual member of a family to be used to try to bring about a certain economy to satisfy an inefficient Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Let me give one or two cases to the Parliamentary Secretary. There is a case where there is a sick mother. Seven shillings and sixpence is being paid per week to get a girl in to look after the house. There are three brothers, of whom two are working and one is idle. The wages of the two amount to 50s. We were told when we asked why the unemployment benefit was not given that the income of the household was sufficient. What happens in Scotland is that under our Scottish system, when sons of the house arrive at the age of 21 generally they come under a new arrangement of giving so much to their mother for board and lodging, and what is left they put by towards getting married, for pocket money, and the like. When the Minister of Labour, at the behest of an inefficient Chancellor a the Exchequer, is out to rob all the savings of these young men, by saying that the income of the household is sufficient, I would point out that it is not what the sons really earn that counts, but what is paid into the family exchequer. You do not even allow the
young men pocket money. You take every halfpenny shown on their pay sheet. You have done so in this case, and I want to ask if nothing is going to be done in regard to that form of—I do not like to use the word—but it is a form of theft. Here is the position: If the unemployed brother went across the street and took lodgings, you would have to pay, because he is one of those cases of standard benefit.
Then I have certain cases at Spring-burn where some of the women who do not like to be unemployed took uninsurable employment. The women were fully insured, having paid for over 13 years. They fell out of work again. They go down to the Labour exchange and there they were told they could get work at Stobhill Hospital. After being there for two years they were dismissed, and go to the Exchange, and are surprised to be told that they have no further benefit due because they have been in uninsurable employment. One can easily see what is going to take place because this matter had been scattered about Spring-burn. These young women are saying to the other girls: "Do not take employment that is uninsurable because what it means is this: After you have been paying in for nine or 10 years you are not going to get a halfpenny if you have been in another class of employment which is not insurable." I want to ask if an answer can be given to this point, and I am somewhat doubtful whether I shall get a satisfactory answer.
I want to come h r to the point raised by the right hon. Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) who spoke about development abroad. I am more interested in development at home. He talked about swamps abroad that could be dried up. We have quite a number of swamps to be dried up in England before we go abroad. If you take the question of swamps there what does it mean? It means that you have got to find housing when you get there—I am speaking of abroad. You have to transfer all those who are going. It is much cheaper to deal with your land that is half the Year under water in England— it is not so much in Scotland—but there are big areas half the year under water. Yet it has never seemed to occur to anyone that this would not only be good
employment for men, the sort of employment one wants, but that the land might become very valuable land.
If you come to the question of industry in itself I am not going to speak as sonic have spoken before in this Debate about starting industries in competition with the other nations. I have spoken before about new industries which ought to have been started, and which were promised before the War. You had an exhibition of this the other day when the Air Estimates were being discussed. We heard the Minister for Air and other hon. Members discussing enthusiastically the beautiful machines we can build, the aeroplanes we can build, and the magnificent engines we can put into the aeroplanes, yet it had to be admitted that while we build all these machines here, we depend for the fuel to take them up into the air coming from abroad. There is a new in industry.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I am not quite clear whether the hon. Member is entitled to develop that point.

Mr. HARDIE: I am dealing with the question of how we might reduce the number of the unemployed. I think, Mr. Hope, that the suggestion I am about to in mike should be allowed.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's suggestion would be in order if the Minister of Labour had any power to deal with it.

Mr. HARDIE: As I understand it, the Minister of Labour has wide discretionary powers given to him, and he can put the suggestion before the Prime Minister or the Cabinet.

The CHAIRMAN: If it is not in the Minister's power to formulate schemes of this sort—I am not quite sure whether it is or not—then clearly it is in order. If it means forwarding suggestions to some other Department, it is not in order.

Mr. HARDIE: What I am now suggesting to the Government or the Minister of Labour is what might be done to reduce unemployment.

The CHAIRMAN: If I may take the silence of the representative of the Ministry as indicating consent, the hon. Member can proceed.

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no objection to the hon. Member or anyone else
making any suggestions but, of course, I have no power at all and no money to do the sort of thing suggested.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. When we were discussing the Bill introduced from these benches the chief objection of the hon. Gentleman opposite to the Bill was that he had all the power to do all the things he proposed in that Bill: therefore the Bill was not necessary. That Bill proposed a whole volume of useful work. I should like to know who is right in this matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, if I recollect aright in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers there was a scheme put forward to be considered by the Ministry jointly with other Departments.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a further point of Order. Cannot we censure the Department—we should be very sorry that it should be the hon. Gentleman opposite— but cannot we censure the Department for not putting schemes before the Committee, for not producing schemes, and asking the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money, to get on with these things? It is, poverty of initiative on the part of the hon. Gentleman and his Department.

The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee is responsible to the Ministry of Labour, I think it would be in order to urge that it should make suggestions. I think it is a Treasury Committee.

Mr. BETTERTON: The Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a Cabinet Committee.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Labour is Chairman of that Committee? If so, I should submit, Mr. Hope, that my hon. Friend can proceed with his suggestions.

The CHAIRMAN: Since the matter is a little obscure I will give the hon. Member for Springburn the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. HARDIE: The matter is one I should like to detail somewhat. It is on these lines: it is not new to this House. It is a suggestion from myself. We have been speaking about new industries. It is no use, for instance, opening up a new coalfield in Kent when you can get more coal than you want elsewhere. I am not
suggesting anything in that line. I am suggesting that in the manufacture of fuel for aeroplanes there should be Government control, because that fuel is a Government necessity for those who believe in war. Yet here we have a Government that has destroyed the finest plant that was ever built in the world. It is sold and scrapped, at Gretna; yet we are having to-day to find a big sum of money for unemployed men, some of whom at least could be employed in manufacture, in that industry, to provide fuel in order, if nothing else, to take our aeroplanes into the air. But this is only one idea so far as the new industry is concerned. You have the question of petrol. The countries that are producing petrol are using more and more of it for their own needs, and leaving the surplus to be sent abroad.
When it comes to heavy basic oils we have only two plants in this country, while so-called backward Russia has ordered three plants to, start with. We are supposed to have been in this business 70 years and we have only two plants. Plants have been built in Britain for despatch to Russia. One left the docks in the last week or two. Yet we talk about ours being a forward country, and Russia being a backward country. When it comes to the initiation of a new industry, the supposed savages in Russia can show us the way every time—not only in organising, but in setting up new industries. It is only by the reorganisation of our industry that we are going to absorb the men who are unemployed.
Let me say, in conclusion, that the points I have gone over are matters which are biting deep into the hearts of the people who suffer. I am not speaking for the "dodger," as he is called—he forms a very, very small number in this great army of unemployed. I am thinking about decent types of people, personally known to Members of Parliament, and about all the cruelties which are being perpetrated. I am thinking of a woman lying in bed that I see so often, with her two brothers trying to save to get married, and another brother told that, although he has paid his contributions, he cannot get unemployment benefit, but is made to live as a pauper on his two brothers. I know that you as individuals would not sanction that.
It is quite easy to see from your faces that you are nice, kind gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member is complimenting me or the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. HARDIE: If I was paying compliments just now, they certainly included you, Mr. Chairman, because we know from past experience just how kindly we are dealt with when we happen to go astray. In my last word, let me say that I hope that the good, kind hearts, including the Chairman's, of those engaged in this business, will see to it that this Act becomes an Act whose operation is riot dependent on the discretionary powers of one man, and not an Act to effect economies, but an Act to give justice to those who cannot help themselves.

Mr. KIDD: We have had many criticisms of the Ministry of Labour by Members who were relating their experiences, and I think we should have the experiences, of quite a different character, of those who know the other side. At times everyone representing an industrial constituency is tempted to feel intensely irritated with the Ministry of Labour. Going about one's constituency one hears case after case which seems very hard, and one's sympathy is stirred, and one seeks to get a remedy from the Ministry of Labour, and often times fails. But I was surprised to hear some of the speakers say the irritation was caused by the Minister's abuse of the discretion which is left to him. Speaking with an experience of many cases from an industrial constituency which has suffered very badly in the last few years, I cannot agree with that criticism. I have usually found that the difficulty was that I was up against an Act of Parliament which denied all discretion to the Minister—at least it left him with a very limited discretion. There was a dispute recently in the shale industry in my own county, and on the question of unemployment benefit I at once came up against the Act of 1924, passed by a Socialist Government. Under that Act, if a referee decides against a man and the man happens to be a member of a trade union, there is an appeal to the umpire, as a matter of course; but if he does not belong to
the union it is only as a matter of grace, or by the permission of the referee, that an appeal can go to the umpire. That is one of the commonest cases, and in such a case the Minister ha no discretion whatever, being bound by Act of Parliament. Without any desire to be unduly flattering to the Ministry of Labour, I am bound to say I am rather surprised to find them conducting this work, which must always be difficult work, in such a courteous, painstaking, and, within the limits of their discretion, most helpful way.
Everyone recognises the overwhelming necessity of dealing fairly with the unemployed, but everyone, who has a fair-minded regard for the national interest as well as for the interests of the individual, is bound to recognise the great possibilities of leakage in any unemployment scheme unless it be properly administered. Bearing in mind the state of the national Exchequer, and bearing in mind all our enthusiasm for economy, one cannot hut he surprised that we are able to get along as well as we do. In many cases I have realised the limits of the powers of the Ministry, but I have always found them using their good offices to solve difficulties; and in the ease of a Ministry that is never likely to get any laurel leaves, but always certain to get more kicks than ha'pence, I am surprised the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have done so well as they have done.

Mr. R. MORRISON: This Debate appears to be following the lines that every Debate of a similar character has followed ever since I have been a Member of this House. A large number of the Members of the party opposite appear to regard a Debate upon unemployment as an occasion for a holiday, and put in no appearance at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Your party has not got many Members here.

Mr. MORRISON: Some Members make suggestions for dealing with the problem, but a great majority of Members devote their attention to dealing with minor points of administration, making strenuous efforts to secure that the administration of the existing Act shall be less harsh than it has been hitherto. At the end of it all, those who
have spoken and those who have only listened, wend their way homewards like good citizens, with an air of smug self-satisfaction, feeling they have contributed their quota to the problem. While all the time their is a standing army of over 1,000,000 out of work in this country.
It seems to be regarded as ridiculous that anyone should attempt to concentrate attention on that main factor. It seems to be expected, in order to conform with the rules of debate, that one should concentrate on minor, infinitesimal points, and the more infinitesimal the point the more necessary it appears to be that it should be dealt with at length. I do not intend to introduce any spirit of recrimination into the Debate but in what I say I want to lead up to a suggestion that I have to make. I can recall only one suggestion made in the course of this Debate, and that was a suggestion by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Captain Guest) in favour of emigration. Up to now that suggestion has not met with a very friendly response, and I hope my suggestion, when I come to it, may receive better treatment.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health, when speaking in the House last night, commented on the fact that a jeer came from this side of the House at the statement that unemployment was falling. I have noticed in Debates lately that every time a statement is made from these benches that unemployment figures are falling it is received with cheers from the opposite side and jeers from this side. A good deal of the explanation of that is to be found in speeches which some of my colleagues, and some of the hon. Members opposite, have delivered this afternoon regarding the methods adopted of late to reduce the figures of unemployment. In the Press only to-day there are announcements that the Lambeth Board of Guardians and the Southwark Board of Guardians are faced with a tremendous increase of expenditure.
Some explanation ought to be forthcoming; if the explanation is not to be found in the fact that it is only the figures of unemployment which are being reduced, and not the actual amount of unemployment, I do not know what the explanation is. The other day I put a question to the Minister of Health respecting one con-
stituency which might be repeated of almost every industrial constituency in the United Kingdom. My question asked him whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that during the week ending the 19th February, 10,696 persons were in receipt of relief from the Cardiff Board of Guardians, against 8,641 in the corresponding week a year ago, and whether he could give any explanation of the cause of this large increase. The reply I received—I am quoting the exact words, was:
Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I am unable to say what is the explanation of the increase.
I think it is very doubtful indeed whether unemployment is decreasing. Certainly, the figures are decreasing, but our contention is that the burden is simply being shifted from the State on to the local authorities. This is the point I want to lead up to. The other Friday the Labour party introduced a Bill for dealing with unemployment. It was the subject of a series of speeches from the other side of the House, very clever speeches, very able speeches, which tore it to rags and tatters. In those speeches Members pointed out that it was hopeless as an attempt to deal with the problem. Speaker after speaker ridiculed it, and it was voted down. In addition to putting forward that Bill, we on this side have made other suggestions. Ever since I have been in this House I have heard suggestions put forward, and have contributed my share to them. We have suggested raising the school-leaving age, the legal limitation of the hours of labour, afforestation, railway electrification, the giving of higher wages to increase the consuming power of our people. A thousand and one proposals have been suggested, but to all of them the Government have turned a deaf ear. We used to be asked to suggest schemes. We did suggest schemes, and so did the local authorities. It would be no exaggeration to say the pigeon-holes of Government Departments are bulging with schemes submitted by local authorities, by Labour Members, and even by Conservative Members. What is the use of continuing on these lines?
The Minister of Transport is not approving any new schemes if they entail any expenditure from the Road Fund, and all the schemes submitted to
him since August last have been held up. The Special Grants Committee has slowed down almost to a standstill. On this side of the House we have produced our Bill to deal with this problem, and hon. Members opposite simply ridiculed it. We have produced our schemes, but they have all fallen upon deaf ears. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have also made similar suggestions to assist this problem, and some of them have put forward cold-blooded tariff reform proposals. Those interested in the fishing industry have also suggested the opening up of trade relations with Russia, and the agricultural Members have made various suggestions. Nevertheless the Government has shown no signs whatever of paying any attention to all those suggestions. In face of that we have the right to ask what is the Government doing? Up to the present they have turned down what everybody else has suggested, and they have turned a deaf ear to the proposals put forward not only by Members of Parliament but also by local authorities, and that attitude is not getting us any further. The Government has no remedy for unemployment, and when a right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House suggested that they claim to have a remedy it was met with great indignation, and the Government repudiated that they had ever declared they had a remedy for unemployment. Therefore it is established that the Government does not claim to have any remedy for unemployment.
Now I come to the question whether the Government have any plans for palliating the worst effects of unemployment, and if so what are they, and when are they going to produce them? Meantime all this is going on, and while members of all parties are doing their best to put forward suggestions which meet with no response, the local authorities are at their wits end and are getting deeper and deeper into debt. The principle adopted seems to be that the poorer they are the more they are to be punished. The practice has been for wealthy people to move out of poor localities and go to live in more salubrious districts where the rates are not so high, and thus they leave the poor to keep the poor. I will give an example of what the Tottenham Local Authority has attempted to do while the present Government has been in power. I would
like to remind hon. Members opposite that Tottenhant is not a Labour Council and never has been, and what I am going to say may be regarded as a typical example of the position of local authorities in most of our industrial districts.
On the 17th December, 1924, the Tottenham District Council called a town's meeting. The chairman of the local district council presided, and he was supported by the local Members of Parliament, one of whom happens to be a member of the party opposite and the other was myself. There were on the platform county councillors, members of the Tottenham District Council, representatives of the boards of guardians and the various churches including the Free Church Council, the Salvation Army, the British Legion, the unemployed of Tottenham, the Trades Council, the Labour party, the Manufacturers' Association, the Jewish community, the local Women's Association, the local chamber of commerce, friendly societies and the local employers' exchange. Representatives from all those organisations appeared on the platform at that meeting and the following resolution was carried unanimously at a meeting at which about 1,000 people were present:
That we, the assembled citizens of Tottenham, whilst appreciating the unceasing efforts which have been made by the various local and other authorities in the district to deal with the question of unemployment, view with alarm the number of unemployed and the consequent misery thereby entailed. Having regard to the limited resources of the local authorities of the country, and to the consideration that the prevision of employment is a national responsibility, this meeting calls upon the Government at once to formulate comprehensive national schemes for works of permanent utility, in which skilled as well as unskilled labour will be appropriately employed, such works to be financed nationally, and to be administered in local areas or groups of local areas by or under the general supervision of the local authorities of such areas.
I do not need to read the whole of the resolution, but the last part of it is as follows:
That the Prime Minister be respectfully requested to summon an urgent and special Session of Parliament, with a view to the problem of unemployment being dealt with immediately.
We suggested that a special Session should be called but nothing whatever happened as a result of our suggestion.
Then I come to October, 1925. Here you will notice that we went a step further, because we had determined to try something else. On the 2nd October, 1925, the Tottenham District Council passed the following resolution:
That the council's previous resolutions relating to unemployment, and calling for a special Session of Parliament to deal with this question be confirmed.
That the Council's resolution on unemployment, passed on 4th May, 1925, namely:
That the Government be again requested to take immediately and active steps to provide remedial measures for the relief of unemployment. With this object in view the council suggest the convening of a national industrial conference, representative of the employers and workers of all trades and industries, together with representatives of the community generally. Such conference to sit in continuous session coincident with the Parliamentary Session until definite and practical measures are agreed upon acid given effect to.
That copies of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and to Mr. Lloyd George, and that the local Members of Parliament, be requested to take all possible steps to give effect to these suggestions in the House of Commons.
That copies of this resolution be also sent to the local authorities of areas having a population of 50,000 and upwards,
be re-affirmed, and that copies of this resolution be sent to every Member of the House of Commons, requesting in reply their observations thereof.
That is another suggestion, and in accordance with the request of the Tottenham District Council I put a question to the Prime Minister whether he had received a suggestion that a national industrial conference should be called together to deal with unemployment, and the Prime Minister's reply was to the effect that he did not believe such an industrial conference would have any good results, and he preferred to see the representatives of employers and the men employed in each specific industry, and he did not think such an industrial conference would have any result. We made that, suggestion in a spirit which was intended to be helpful. I come now to the present time. Our next suggestion is contained in a letter dated the 3rd February, 1926, on which date the borough council of Tottenham adopted the following report of their finance and Parliamentary committee:

"(a) That the local Members of Parliament be asked, in co-operation with those
695
Members of Parliament who have expressed their willingness to support the council's proposals, to convene a non-party conference of Members of Parliament, with a view of pressing the Government to take immediate steps to carry into effect the council's representations hereon.
(b) That a communication be sent to those local authorities who decided to support the council's resolution requesting them to urge their Members of Parliament to co-operate with the Tottenham Members of Parliament on the foregoing lines."

In his letter the clerk to the Tottenham Borough Council further stated:
I am to express the hope that you and Major P. B. Malone, M.P., will be so kind as to give effect to the council's proposals, and arrange for a non-party conference of Members of Parliament, to be convened with a view of urging the Government to take immediate steps to deal with the question of unemployment.
I am giving these quotations to get the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that here is the case of one authority which has been patiently doing its best to get some attention paid to this problem. First of all we asked for a Special Session of Parliament, then for a National Conference to be set up, and now they have gone to the extent of asking the Member of Parliament for South Tottenham (Major Malone) and myself to convene a conference of Members of this House to see whether anything can be done along those lines. The effect of all this is that there is a rapidly growing impression not only in this House, but amongst the local authorities and the people in industrial districts that the Government have left off trying to do anything, and I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that he must recognise the position in which myself and my colleague have been placed. We have tried to convene a non-party conference, and quite a number of Members of the party opposite have already written to the Town Clerk of Tottenham signifying their willingness to meet together to see if anything can be done along those lines. The hon. and gallant Member for South Tottenham and myself will do our best, but two private Members of this House, with the best intentions in the world, cannot get very far on a question of this sort.
My suggestion is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government would be prepared to take a lead in this direction. It is a humble suggestion, and I hope it will be not be met by merely pouring ridicule upon it, because
that does not get any of us any further at all. My suggestion is that the Ministry of Labour should take the lead in this matter and approach the other parties in the House to see whether it is not possible to set up a non-party committee to get down to definite practical proposals which do not cut across the political convictions held by members of all parties. If a non-party committee of this House were to be set up without expecting any member of any party to give up any sincere political convictions, I think it would be possible to get down to a number of practical proposals upon which action could be taken, because every man put into work is something accomplished. I would appeal to the Minister not to treat this suggestion as so many others have been treated, because, if accepted in the right spirit, and taken up by the Minister and received by the other two parties in a right spirit, and a non-party committee is set up, I think it would have a far-reaching effect and would create a new atmosphere to bear on this problem which we have not had in the past.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In rising to take
part in this Debate, I share the feeling of almost hopelessness which has been expressed by several hon. Members. I remember taking part in all the Debates last year on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and I felt then that the position created was a very severe one for the unemployed in this country. We have heard from the last speaker one or two concrete suggestions, namely, that a non-party Committee should be called together, and also that the Government should get a move on with the provision of more work. Personally, I have not a great deal of faith in the idea of a non-party Committee, but, even with my lack of faith, if there is the thousandth part of a chance of its doing anything at all, the Government ought at least to give it some trial. The difficulty of this Debate is two-fold. It is difficult to discuss unemployment, its cause and its remedy, and then to deal with the administration of Unemployment Insurance. It is the most difficult thing in the world to discuss schemes and then to discuss terms of administrative detail. I know, and I am sure that every Member on these benches
will agree, that schemes for finding a solution of the unemployment problem are the main job. If we could solve the problem, there would be no need to come here and argue the administrative details.
I want, however, to say to members of this Committee, even to those on these benches, that, even if the suggestion of ray hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) were carried out, and even if our further suggestions as to trade with Russia and as to opening up and developing new trade at home and abroad were carried out, there would still be a number of people reemployed, for at the best, even if the Government were; to undertake those schemes, they could not do so without the lapse of some little time. In fact, it was one of the grievous things about the party opposite that, when they were in Opposition, they allowed no time at all to the then Labour Government to operate any of its own schemes. If you are, going to have schemes, people have still to be maintained, and that is why I am going to concentrate on the administrative side of Unemployment Insurance. Even if all the suggestions that have been made are carried out, the men must be fed in the meantime, and the Minister of Labour, so far from feeding the men, or even securing them the barest minimum of comfort, is taking every step to secure that they shall not get it.
I was interested in the statement of an hon. Member for a Scottish industrial constituency—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—that he had very little criticism to make of the Ministry of Labour. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham that one of the best ways of judging the Ministry of Labour is by the Poor Law returns, and I got the Govan Parish Council, which controls almost half the city of Glasgow, and which is predominantly Tory, to make out a return, not for a week, but for a whole year, starting with November, 1924, and ending in December, 192.5—that is to say, almost coinciding with the coming into office of tie present Government until the end of last year. In the first week of November, 1924, there were 3,490 able-bodied people on the Poor Law; on the 5th December, 1925, even with the supposed decreasing unemployment figures, the number had risen from 3,490 to 5,150 in
that period. We find, in the Exchanges in the south side of Glasgow, a rapid increase of disallowances during that period of 12 months, and we find that, while the Poor Law authority in Glasgow spent £1,800 on able-bodied relief in November. 1924, in November, 1925, after a year of Tory Government, they were spending £3,805, or £2,000 a week more than when the Labour Government left office.
I know that Members come here—occasionally even Labour Members—and say that men who are out of work for a long while must have something wrong with them; that they cannot be looking for work, or they must be inefficient, or sometimes that they are lacking in capacity. Even applying that argument, those people have still to live; they must still exist. I know that the answer of the. Parliamentary Secretary will be the old favourite answer that this is an insurance fund. He will say to me, and to every other Member who has raised this question, that, if people were allowed to draw for three, four and five years, they would draw far in excess of what they had paid in, and, therefore, it could not be run on insurance principles. Admitting that argument, granting that he is correct in saying that this is an insurance fund and has to be run on insurance principles, might I then ask what he proposes to do for those who are outside the scope of the Insurance Fund I It is not sufficient to cut them off, saying that this is an insurance fund and letting it end there. People must still live; they are human beings, and our modern society has not reached the stage when we take them out and shoot them in a quick way.
If it be an insurance fund, what is the Minister going to say is to take the place of this fund in the case of those people who cannot secure benefit from it? If he cannot give them the benefit, then it is his duty, as Minister of Labour, to create some other fund which will secure that these people get at least a minimum amount of benefit. For instance, a man is disqualified because he has not worked for a reasonable period during the last two years. That is harsher even than telling him that he is not genuinely seeking work. If he is told that he is not genuinely seeking work, he might produce some evidence, but here, even if he pro-
duces all the evidence he can gather to show that he is genuinely looking for work, yet, if he has not within two years had a reasonable period of employment, then, no matter what kind of evidence he produces, he is automatically disqualified from receiving benefit. It is not good enough even for the Minister of Labour to say that this is insurance, that it must be run on insurance lines and must be kept solvent. If he cannot find the benefit from this Fund, it is his duty to find the money to keep these folk alive from some other source which he ought to create.
There is a new administrative Circular that has recently been sent out. About three or four weeks ago, I almost committed heresy in the House when I had the temerity to oppose, as I have always done, a Bill in my opposition to which I always find myself alone—a Bill to give disabled ex-service men preference in securing work. As to the merits of that Bill I am not going to argue, but on that occasion I put it to the Minister of Labour that he could show an example to employers in this direction by granting disabled men benefit more readily than he has been doing. I find that the Minister of Labour, so far from helping in this direction, is in many cases penalising disabled men in regard to securing benefit. Take the case of a man who has been disabled and who goes to work. Under this new Circular, issued on the 5th March, 1926, if that man be single, and has a pension of £2 a. week, his pension is taken as an income and he is disqualified from receiving extended benefit. Could there be anything more unjust or cruel than to say to an ex-service man, "Here is £2 a week; that is for compensation, to a very meagre extent, for your injuries received during the War," and then, after he has drawn his standard benefit, if he is single, to take that amount as his income and refuse him any extended benefit at all? We hear people preaching that employers should show the way, and the only way the Minister of Labour can show is disallowing these folk benefit.
There is another point that I want to make. It is with regard to the question of standard benefit. I know the Minister of Labour will tell me that the Act of 1924 repealed a certain Section of
the Act of 1920, and that, therefore, we are possibly more to blame than he. But that is not answering the case. The Minister has not to meet the sins of past Governments, but the sins that are being committed at the moment. I want to put the case of married women employed by a local cooperative society. The co-operators in that case have laid it down, rightly or wrongly, that, whenever women employés get married, they must leave their employment, and they are automatically dismissed on marriage. All the women who were thus dismissed were disqualified from receiving benefit on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work. One or two of them were members of their union, and they went beyond the Court of Referees and got a decision from the Umpire reversing the decision of the Court of Referees; but what has happened? In the ordinary law, the High Court dominates all lower Courts, but the Minister of Labour does not accept that view. The Umpire's decision ought to govern the cases of all married women who are dismissed merely because they have got married, and for no other reason at all.
I have looked into the figures locally in Glasgow, and I find that during the past year almost every woman who has been dismissed because she had got married, and has made an application for unemployment benefit, has 'peen refused benefit. In those cases, however, where she had her union to fight it as far as the Umpire, she has received the benefit, and yet the Minister of Labour refuses to allow the Umpire's decision to govern those of the lower Court, that is to say, the Court of Referees. There is one thing on which I wish to congratulate the Minister. I see the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) present. One of his favourite complaints used to be that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) had given aliens unemployment benefit. I represent an alien division of Scotland. All that my right hon. Friend's instructions have done is to increase the number in the whole of Glasgow by five. The hon. Member opposite made people believe that the Labour Government were giving all the aliens unemployed benefit. I see the Minister has issued a Circular in which former
enemy aliens are not now to be discriminated against regarding extended benefit, and I congratulate him.
A Circular was issued on 9th March, 1925—the most cunningly-worded Circular that ever I came across. It appears to be a good thing but in practice it is one of the worst possible Circulars of all. It sets out to say there are a large number of people who come before the Committees who can be quite easily granted benefit by the exchange managers in a straightforward fashion without the applicants needing to wait or to come before the Committee, ad the exchange officials are given power to grant the benefit forthwith. But what in fact is happening is that whereas, before, the Committee could and usually did grant benefit for 12 weeks, the official is limited to granting benefit only for six weeks, and the result is that he is only granting benefit for six weeks and then the case is again reviewed and the applicant again has to go before the Committee. Far from being a benefit, the Circular means that the man is more frequently called before the Committee than was the case formerly.
My last word to the Minister is this. Thousands of people are being refused benefit. There are many Regulations, but there ought only to be one. Can you give the man a job. Can you find the woman work? An old trick of the Minister of Labour with the women folk is to ask a girl if she will take domestic service. If she says "No," benefit is refused. If she says "Yes," they could not give her a job, and the women are now saying "Yes" and they cannot be sent to jobs, but before, when the girls were honest and said "No," they were refused. It is not sufficient for the Minister either to say they are bad people. I come from a district which is not noted for its goodness, but I have always noticed that everyone who is sly, the cute man, the dodger, could beat all the Regulations that ever a Minister of Labour cared to put in force. The Regulations only penalise the honest and the decent, and the duty of the Minister of Labour is to see that neither man nor woman who is snaking an effort to secure work is penalised. I have seen people who are bad, some of them even worthy of hanging, or shooting, or sometimes jailing, but I have never seen a man or woman who deserved starving to death, and the Regulations which deprive
people of benefit are starving them to death and punishing them worse than you would punish your criminal population. I hope the Under-Secretary will say that the Government, after 12 months, is going to relax these cruel, stringent Regulations which are penalising innocent people.

Mr. TINKER: I want to draw the Minister's attention to the work of the local committees. In June last there was issued a small pamphlet dealing with extended benefit and dependants—really instructions to local committees. I want to read one or two paragraphs to show what we are expected to do. Clause 44, on page 18, reads as follows:

EXTENDED BENEFIT CONDITIONS.

"That the claimant Is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacity, and is willing to accept such employment. This condition is of supreme importance. It is intended to ensure that every claimant for extended benefit is a genuine seeker of employment. It means that the claimant will show to the satisfaction of the committee that he is, both generally and at the particular date of claiming, taking all possible steps to obtain any employment for which he may be reasonably regarded as suitable, and that he will continue to take such steps if benefit is granted."

Another paragraph, to show what is expected from the local committees, reads as follows:
It is of the utmost importance that every care should be taken to see that these conditions are satisfied by claimants. The object of referring claims to local committees is to utilise the local knowledge which members of such committees possess and to ensure the advantage of a personal interview with the claimant. The assistance thus provided in the past has been of the greatest value, and the Minister has to place on record his appreciation of their services, and he trusts that he may continue to receive the benefit of their co-operation.

If that is the idea of the Minister when the local employment committee have dealt with the cases, they think it highly unfair that a number should be turned down. The committee is made up of employers, workmen's representatives and a certain section connected with neither. They have to study the whole of the facts surrounding the case and surely, when they come to a decision that the applicant is entitled to extended benefit, it comes very hard indeed that the Minister decides to veto their carrying out of the resolution. I can tell him
it is almost at the breaking point as to whether the committees will carry on the work they have hitherto done.

Before he takes that step of turning down a large number of these cases he ought first of all to consider the whole of the circumstances, and when the rota committee decide that a man is to have extended benefit and the Minister reviewing the case says No, I would ask him to submit the whole case back to the full committee and to send down one of his staff to put the Minister's point of view, and after that, if the local unemployment committee decide almost unanimously that the man is entitled to benefit, I think the Minister ought to give way. If he does not adopt that suggestion what is the use of the local unemployment committee? It is a farce first of all to say that they are the people best suited to examine all the circumstances, that hitherto they have done their work well, and then, when they decide that the claimant is entitled to benefit, to overrule them. More regard ought to be given to those who know all the local circumstances. We know the men who ought not to be entitled to it. We would not give payment to men who are not genuinely seeking work. It is only after thorough investigation, with the knowledge we possess, that we desire that a man or woman should have payment. After we have gone through the whole of that, when we are told, as we are in many cases, that they are not to have benefit, we begin to ask ourselves what is the good of giving our service when no notice is taken of it at all. I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this point, because we feel it very keenly. I sit on a local committee which time after time has resented the action of the Minister in turning down cases we have thought ought to go through.

That is one point which I would ask him not to pass over lightly. If he really values our services for the good work we have done in the past, he ought to remember that the same good work is being carried on now. If he would do that, it would mitigate many of the complaints that are brought to his notice. These men, who are in search of work and cannot get it are entitled to more consideration than they receive. In a
locality where there is little work to be found, it is not right that when the men produce evidence that they are genuinely seeking work, that their ease should be shelved and there is no money for them. That is entirely wrong. It is on these grounds that, I appeal most earnestly to the Minister to consider the point of view of the local committees, and when they have decided that payment ought to be made, only in very exceptional cases ought that decision to be turned down. All the other points with which one might have dealt have been dealt with by other speakers.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Like the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) I am not very hopeful about the treatment of the unemployed by the Government. The Vote we are discussing shows a reduction of £2,139,000. That is an alarming indication of the policy which the Government is pursuing. A few days ago, in the Debate on the Economy Bill, I interjected a, remark in regard to a statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unemployment had fallen by 30,000 since certain calculations were made. I asked him if that was a genuine fall in unemployment. His sarcastic reply to me was that nothing would convince me that there was a genuine fall, since the idea that unemployment was a continuing and growing factor was a kind of plank in the platform of myself and of my party. I think I was thoroughly justified in interjecting that remark. It ha d been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government were stiffening up their dealings with this question of unemployment and with the applicants for unemployment pay. The speeches which have been delivered this evening by hon. Members who have given their personal experience of the working of the Unemployment Insurance Act by the present Ministry appears to me to justify my interjection, because it appears from the facts which have been given respecting various localities that there has been a growth in the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in some form or another, coincident with the stiffening up of the Regulations, and that while numbers have disappeared from one register they have appeared automatically on the other. Therefore it does not appear that there is any real fall in unemployment.
So far from there being any desire on my part or any appearance of eagerness on my part that there should be no fall in unemployment, let me say that I have experienced unemployment myself. I go into the homes of the unemployed, and I know too much of the horrible sufferings entailed by unemployment to wish for a single moment that any person should be kept unemployed longer than is essential, and I resent very much the idea that purely for political purposes we should he desirous that unemployment should continue. We are anxious that the problem of unemployment should be dealt with effectively. We are justified in coming to the conclusion that the present Government, representing the interests that they do, are incapable of dealing in any effective way with the problem of unemployment. We feel confident that they cannot deal with it effectively. On looking into the records of this question of unemployment I find that it was first discussed in this House in 1879, and it is important and interesting to note that the same kind of reasons for unemployment were given then that are given now.
The hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandman) suggested this afternoon that unemployment was due to the fact that the two sides could not come together. He said that unemployment was due largely to labour problems. That indicates the state of mind of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. They all seem to think that if one could only get the workmen and the employers to come together in a beautiful bond of unity and love, all would be well. The Prime Minister told us the other day in regard to war that blood-shed was disappearing and that the love of God was having a chance to compete with the stupidity of Man. I do wish that the love of God would work in this unemployment problem, so that we could see how far we could get. Before we talk about abolishing war, let us see whether we cannot establish peace in regard to this question
I find that in 1879 when the question of unemployment was discussed the first and most prominent reason given for unemployment was labour troubles. It has been the same all the way through. Labour troubles here and labour troubles there have been advanced as the cause of unemployment. We are now proposing
to deal with unemployment to some extent by emigration.
That suggestion is not new. It was fashionable in 1883, so fashionable that the Government of that day passed a Bill to assist passengers for emigration from Ireland. It was afterwards extended to assist persons emigrating from this country. Emigration was, therefore, fashionable nearly 50 years ago as a means of dealing with unemployment. Time passed, and in a Debate in this House the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated, on the 23rd February, 1910, that unemployment was a continuing symptom of our social system, whether we had good trade or bad trade. I agree that that is so; but if the right hon. Gentleman in 1910, 16 years ago, had discovered that, why are we at the present time in this House, or why is the Government, dealing with this question in such a higgledy-piggledy manner.
When the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was Minister of Labour, he was the most-attacked man in the Labour Government, because in the eight months that he was in office he did not deal effectively with the unemployment question. The position to-day is as bad, or probably worse, than it was then, and although the present Government has been in office with the largest majority that the Conservative party has ever had in this country, it is absolutely helpless to deal with the question.

Mr. LANSBURY: They have not a mouse, let alone a rabbit!

Mr. WALLHEAD: According to the Ministry of Labour Gazette, the mean of unemployment for 1925 was 10.5 per cent. In 1900, the mean was 2.5 per cent., in 1904 it was 6 per cent. and in 1908 it was 7.8 per cent. In those years when the rate of unemployment went up from 6 per cent. to 7.8 per cent. it constituted an unemployment crisis. The difference between 2.5 per cent. and 6 per cent. brought about a tremendous crisis in regard to unemployment. Unemployment, according to the Government's own publication, was 10.5 per cent. for 1925, yet there is no real attempt being made to deal with the problem from any point of view that can be seriously considered as a means towards a solution. It is time that the House demanded that the Gov-
ernment should declare policy consists. I cannot its policy.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am looking for the Government.

Mr. WALLHEAD: They are never here when we are discussing these matters. I should like to know whether they still accept the point of view as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary in 1910. Have they decided whether the present phase of unemployment is epidemic in character or endemic in character? If it is epidemic why have they not dealt with it as an epidemic? If it is endemic, why have they not made some practical proposals for dealing with it? As far as I am concerned they neither can nor will. I am not one of those who hold that capitalism can solve the problem of the unemployed. I believe that this country holds so much potential wealth in its grasp and has such marvellous powers of wealth production that it can produce sufficient wealth to abolish poverty. There is no need for poverty, it can be driven out. But capitalism cannot solve that problem. The party opposite have been called the stupid party, they are still the stupid party, and I am convinced that they will not even if they could. Every Measure they have introduced has tended to make unemployment worse. They reestablish the gold standard, although they were told that it would create more unemployment. Those who prophesied this would be the effect have been proved correct. This policy was distinctly disastrous in its effect on unemployment; and from every other point of view the same thing may be said.
Then as to the way in which the Government are administering the Unemployment, Acts. I could give case after case of terrible hardship. There is a case in my own constituency; a man who has lost an arm in the War He is unemployed, and he has been refused unemployment pay because he is in receipt of a small pension. What on earth is the good of a one-armed man in a place like South Wales where most of the industries are of a particularly arduous character, and yet this man is deprived of unemployment benefit because he is in receipt of a small pension. I
have another case of a man who is deprived of all sources of income. His son, too, has been deprived of unemployment benefit, because he was living with his parents, who have no income. That is the way the Act is being administered. We have necessitous areas where this problem of poverty and unemployment is continuous. So far as my own Division is concerned, and other places in South Wales, it is of a, continuing character, and the men there are being deprived of unemployment pay and driven to Poor Law relief. The rates are going up, and at the same time the works are closing down. And because the works are closing down the rateable value of the area is falling.
Local authorities come to the Department for permission to borrow money and raise loans for new works for the relief of unemployment, and although in my own Division there has been no case of absolute refusal, yet it is becoming increasingly difficult to persuade the Government to allow them to raise loans because, as the Government say, their credit is getting worse. But their credit is getting worse because of the policy of the Government with regard to the payment of unemployment relief. The more you take people off the unemployment register the more they are thrown on the Poor Law rates, and the higher those rates will become. The rateable value will get worse, and the conditions of the whole area must become very serious. It is a vicious circle, and it demands the earnest consideration of the Government. Not only are the working people ruined but the small shopkeepers and the small tradesmen are being ruined. These people have perhaps built up small businesses from which they hope to receive a competency in their declining years, but one by one every prop beneath them is being kicked away, and there is nothing before them but ruin and despair in the old age which is approaching for many of them. It is a terrible position, and it is time the Government stopped for fooling and began to do some practical work for dealing with the unemployment problem.
Why do they not start some scheme of afforestation, not on a pettifogging scale but on the scale outlined by the Forestry Commission some years ago. Why do they not reclaim some of our waste lands? It has been estimated that there are
thousands and thousands of acres of land which could be reclaimed and added to the soil of our country. Experts differ as to how far it is possible this could be done but experts always differ. But if British experts differ how far it is possible to reclaim the waste land around the Wash, we might ask the Dutch to send us an expert. They have reclaimed large portions of their land, and they are now proposing to restore -whole provinces from the sea. I am convinced that much valuable work might be done in this direction. If it is argued that the area of soil which might be reclaimed would not be worth the cost, at least, we should get something. In the last few years, we have spent £340,000,000. If we had got some few thousand acres for that money it would be something. At the present moment we have nothing whatever. On those lines I believe that something has to he done to build up our agricultural life, to reafforest our countryside, to reclaim our waste lands, to drain our bad lands, to develop as far as possible new industries, to discover what new markets are in sight, and to begin to alter our attitude towards some of the Crown Colonies by giving them a chance of getting a little more money and so increasing their purchasing power so far as British commodities are concerned.
We talk about developing the Empire. There is not a single man who does not wish the Empire to develop to its fullest extent. But the Empire needs money. I am told that the British Colonies cannot raise, or find it difficult to raise, loan, here if they are in competition with the higher percentage loans for some of the European States which are almost in a bankrupt condition. If Germany or Hungary want loans at 7 or 8 per cent., there is plenty of money for them. If New Zealand wants money the underwriters have to take it up. That kind of thing is a scandal so far as Empire development is concerned. If only those who prate about Empire development would practise it and give the Colonies a chance, give them the loans that Cliff need, and allow them to develop on the lines that they desire, instead of talking about painting India white—along those lines we could do something practical towards solving the unemployment problem. Give them more happiness and
prosperity there, and there will be more prosperity here.

Mr. GIBBINS: There is one very important point in the instructions issued by the exchange authorities. It has been mentioned in a casual way by one or two speakers. I refer to the cause of disqualification put down in capital letters N.I.P.I.—"not in the public interest." Several of the speakers have said that there is no responsibility attaching to the Labour Minister for the increasing number of disqualified unemployed. They can say what they like about recriminations, but someone is responsible to stand the blame. We are not forgetful that last year the Minister of Labour introduced a Bill which set out to save £4,500,000 or thereabouts, and that that sum could be saved only by tightening up and refusing benefit. One hon. and learned Gentleman said that he thought everything had been done that could be done, and therefore we should not be attaching blame. The Regulations were severe enough before. We know it is difficult for men to get benefit to-day without adding to the Regulations. What has the Ministry done?

Mr. LANSBURY: Nothing!

Mr. GIBBINS: Nothing from the positive side to help to relieve the unemployed or to relieve unemployment, but they have been very positive in providing means of preventing men from drawing unemployment pay. From the point of view of hindering they have plenty of ideas. Take the case I have referred to of N.I.P.I. What does it mean? I know men who have been refused benefit for not having worked a sufficient number of days. They have worked five or six or seven weeks' good work, and they have been again refused benefit because they have earned so much honey; and when they go up and put in an appeal for extended benefit, they are, turned down here use hey have earned too much, although just previously they had been turned down because they had not worked enough. Take a ease in point. It is that of a "docker." He has five children. He is disabled, with a wooden leg, and can do only certain jobs, which are not easy to get. Fortunately the man had a rather good run of work. When he went up for benefit he was turned down because his wages, spread over a period, came to more than half
his pay, although the fact that the man was claiming extended benefit proved that he must have had a long period of unemployment to exhaust his standard benefit. That man is compelled to go to the guardians for relief for himself, wife and five children.
Surely the Minister must take responsibility for issuing the new instructions. The man that can get over the original four is a remarkably clever man. I guarantee the authorities would turn down any Member of this House on the original conditions; it is almost impossible to get over them. In spite of that, the Ministry has determined to get a few more men off, not because they are not seeking work, not because they are in an uninsurable occupation, not because they will not be employed again, but because it would not be in the public interest to give them extended benefit if four weeks' earnings, averaged over a period, come to more than half their pay. If that is not deliberately and determinately trying to lower the standard of life of these men, who mainly are casual labourers, I do not know what is. If it were only one case here and another there, one could forget the matter. I asked a question the other day and I was told that 1,400 men had been refused benefit on this ground in a couple of months, "Not in the public interest." Surely, this proves a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to drive these men to even worse conditions than their previous long periods of unemployment had placed them in.
Take the case of the man with five children. If he had a full week's work at the clocks at l2s. a day his pay would be £3 Gs. Half of that is 33s. That is levelled over a period, and it is considered by the Ministry to be sufficient to keep that man and his family. He must live in future weeks on his previous earnings. The rates of Liverpool have been increased by 6d. in the £ mainly because unemployed men are being subjected to these methods. This is a mean, contemptible and despicable attempt to make the lot of our working people worse than it would be in normal circumstances. Even the allowances which are made would not be sufficient to enable a man to keep a home and a. family, and yet people who have never known what want and starvation mean, are prepared to
put these harsh and cruel regulations into force. Had I a tongue as sharp as that which is attributed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) it would not be too severe to castigate those h o are making life not worth living for hundreds of thousands of our people. I feel that the responsibility for this further hardship rests upon the Ministry of Labour, and the day of reckoning must come when our people will protest, yes, and revolt, against a cruel injustice which could be avoided if those responsible had the soul and the mind to do so.

Sir WILFRID SUDDEN: It is well that this Committee should hear every phase of opinion on this matter from those of us who have a practical knowledge of industrialism, as well as those who offer academic suggestions, and that all should contribute to the discussion on this most important subject. I take this opportunity of offering one or two thoughts, especially in regard to one section of those splendid workers who make the craftsmanship of this nation—I refer to the engineers. The engineers' profession is the very basis of the best industrial life of this country. When one remembers the trained men who have given all their thought and care to that branch of industry: when one remembers those whose parents have deliberately stinted themselves of the necessities of life in order to give their children the best possible technical and practical education not only in this country but even abroad, then appalling to find, in these times nearly 66 per cent. of the trained engineers and shipyard workers in my constituency— The Hartlepools—out of work and enable to get work. That is an essential consideration, and this Committee ought to give special attention to the question of helping the Ministry of Labour to organise and guide the national industrial life in such a way that these great craftsmen of our nation shall have the wherewithal for themselves, their wives and families and shall enjoy a full share and a proper place in the citizenship of this land.
What are the facts? From Governments of every kind we have only had palliative methods of dealing with this great problem. From every Government which has held office since the inception of the Ministry of Labour, we have had
nothing but temporary financial propositions to deal with the problem. I challenge the present Government, which I have the honour off-times to support, or any other Government, to deny that little or no practical constructive work has been done for all sections of industry collectively and that no steps have been taken to place the position properly before the people so as to deal successfully with the essential facts of industry. Nothing has been done, for instance, in regard to industrial psychology in its relation do the production of our goods so as to ensure that our workers shall be able to compete against the world competition with a proper standard of comfort. We have had a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) dealing with the question of industrial fatigue, but nothing has been done by any Government to put into practical operation the results of the wonderful research carried out by that Committee. Their proposals would mean more output, better conditions, and more educational facilities for all. Some may suggest that this is a purely academic consideration, but, as one who has practical knowledge of industry in Germany, France and the United States, as well as this country, I say that this is not a mere matter of idealism but is something which we must try to attain if we are to succeed industrially, and that it is a matter of definite value in £. s. d. on a competitive basis in the world market. Yet, as I say, no Minister of Labour has tried to put into operation the results of the wonderful research work info the psychology of industrial fatigue and production which have been available for over four years.
9.0 P.M.
I also stand here as the advocate of a higher production wage than that which obtains at the moment. The minimum wage, as a step forward in the progress of scientific industrialism in this country, was supposed to he a great advance, but we are long past the days of the minimum wage. We are marching ahead from those times, and the problem which lies before a Ministry of Labour to-day, and which has never yet been tackled by any Government, is the problem of a production wage, the provision of an opportunity in life for those who participate
in the work of national production and of encouragement for that inventive creative genius which is the pride of the British workman. Further, with all the efficiency possessed by the right hon. Gentleman who presides over that Department, the time has come when it is only possible to deal with these matters on the basis of scientific finance. I challenge any member of the Socialist party to say that they have ever been able to present to the nation a clear and practical understanding of the science of finance in its application to this question of employment, trade and industry. No member of the Socialist Government or the Socialist party has ever shown the practical relation of finance to these matters, and especially when we are dealing with national production in relation to international competition, it is most essential that we should consider the question from the financial standpoint. But instead of dealing with matters which are of such importance in connection with the production of the goods which have made our craftsmen the most famous in the world, it is a spirit of disintegration of sullen strife which is beng engendered by the Socialist party. In that respect the Socialist party is doing an ill turn to the ideal of co-partnership, which should exist in regard to mass production among all parties in production. All the parties concerned in production should come together and operate together smoothly, and that is not a matter of idealism alone, but a very practical matter.
Our engineering, mining, textile and transport problems are the greatest industrial problems the world has ever known, but the contributions made to these problems from the Socialist Benches have invariably been of a merely academic nature. I want to plead tonight that there should be an opportunity, by practical means, of dealing, first, with co-partnership; secondly, with production wages; thirdly, with continued conferences and agreement that legitimate averages of profits alone for those who accept the responsibility of management and proprietorship, as also those who sit at the receipt of custom in respect of our goods, shall obtain there; fourthly, with greater and more forcible advance of technical science in this decade. Let me instance only one feature. I am sorry
the Noble Lord who presides over the Board of Education is not here to listen to me, but the representative of the Minister responsible for this Vote is present, and that satisfies my purpose.
In respect, however, to the Minister of Education, neither this Government nor the Governments that have preceded it have ever given a full, complete entourage for the great industrial centres that there should be full, sufficient, thoroughly up-to-date, technical apparatus to deal with the education of the craftsmen in those industrial centres. I challenge any hon. Member to prove to me that there is sufficient up-to-date technical organisation and machinery to deal with the forward movement of highest inventive producing machinery, and of proper wage production and mass production that there must be if we are to compete with the world and our craftsmen live in proper comfort and accept their full family and citizen responsibilities. These matters arc vital to us in respect to our future, and not only to our future as a nation, but the future of the British Empire, which stands as the only guarantee of peace in the world, and I say, without any fear, that the peace of the world will only be possible by the future industrial development of our own land and Empire.
I am not going to deal with the smaller technical and statistical details which go to make up a very important part of this Vote. I am not here to-night to say that some of the methods of scrutiny and examination which obtain in the rota committees in these centres of unemployment are equitable and fair, but I want to lay the blame, if blame there be, at the doors of those who should carry it, and I say that, whether it be the inelasticity of bureaucracy, or whether it be the fact that the detailed systems in such organisations which go to make up the Ministry of Labour are inelastic and more mechanical than human, this I know with certainty, that inequity and injustice are obtaining at the present time in respect of this matter of unemployed insurance. I want also to stress that which has been dealt with more efficiently on another occasion, and that is the greater and more careful scientific application of the credit facilities that have been presented in regard to some of our industries.
It all goes back to the old central position that neither from these benches nor from those benches has come exact, correct, and practical knowledge of the great science of finance in respect to its application to our industrial position to-day. Steel rolling in my own constituency is being seriously threatened by reason of the wrong use of credit facilities. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Labour will remember that his Department can never function efficiently—for it is a subordinate Department in the great sections of the Government in respect of the great problem that we have to face—unless it does more than it has done to promote industrial, educational, financial, and progressive education, efficiency and goodwill, and that will make our nation what she has ever been, namely, a guiding influence for good amongst the nations of the world and the greatest factor for progress in the world.

Mr. GREENAL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. WRIGHT: We have often discussed these problems, but it has been a most unusual Debate on this occasion, because for the greater part of the day there have not been 20 supporters of the Government in the Chamber, while for some part of the day there was not a single Member of the Liberal party on their benches, and we have been driven, under stress of circumstances, to lend them a few for this Debate, an event which is not likely to be forgotten in the years to come. It is all very well to be a little diverted for the time being, and I should enjoy it as much as any hon. Member present, but for the tragedy of the whole proceeding. Here we are, after six or seven years of the most unparalleled period of unemployment which I believe this country has witnessed for over a hundred years, with very tragic consequences to vast numbers of people. We have at the present time government by starvation. We recruit our Army by starvation, and the tragic things which are going on at the present time are almost too awful to contemplate. The present Government, with its vast majority behind it, has, so far as I can
judge, been able to make no practical contribution to this problem since it has been in office.
The hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden), who has just resumed his seat, began very well, and I think we may congratulate him on some of the observations which he made in the early part of his speech. He was good enough to inform us that he had had practical experience of the engineering trade in this country, in Germany, and in France, and that he had a very considerable knowledge of these problems, but he scolded the members of the Socialist party for not having evolved a scientific form of finance for dealing with these problems. May I remind the hon. Member that some of the most highly skilled men in this country or in any other country in the world have been driven to emigrate during the last four or five years, despite their extraordinary skill, because it was quite impossible for them to find any kind of occupation at all in this country.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I agree.

Mr, WRIGHT: Yes, but if you once give us a reasonable majority, with a reasonable period of years on those benches, we will be able to show you it possible. Give us half or a quarter the time that Liberal and Conservative Governments in succession have occupied office during the last 40 years, and if in the course or the first 10 years of Socialist Government we are not able to deal with the problems in a satisfactory way, let the people of this country sweep us as a party into oblivion.
May I call the attention of the Committee to some of the results during recent years? When the Labour Government came into office in 1924, it abolished the gap, raised the benefit to unemployed workmen, and extended the provision of uncovenanted benefit. The results were manifest at once. During 1924–25 the various boards of guardians spent £4,174,382 in relieving persons who were insured under the Insurance Act. The corresponding figure for 1923–24 was £6,400,000, and for 1922–23, £9,400,000. The present Government, in February, 1922, altered the burden in such a way that, while it moved from the Insurance Fund, it went on to the poor rate, and, consequently, the burden had still to be
borne. It is worth looking at the point from another aspect—an aspect of which we are constantly reminded—that of reducing the unemployment figures. I am more than pleased to have observed that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) resented very strongly the sarcastic observation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night during the Debate—an entirely uncalled for observation, in my judgment, after the 90 minutes in which he addressed this House, taking over 26 columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT to say not very much of any value, so far as we are concerned.
Let us see how the figures of the unemployed can be juggled. According to the 1924 register of unemployed, there were in November of that year 1,233,000, and the number of persons unemployed per 10,000 of the population was 387. In April, 1925, there were 1,250,000, but the figure had increased per 10,000 to 401. In November, 1925, the figure was approximately the same, 1,220,000, while the figure per 10,000 was 448. So that you have an increase of about 60 per 10,000 for that period. There is a further question of very great importance. Last Friday two colleagues of mine on these benches, who represent divisions in Glasgow, were attending an associated parish councils' conference of the industrial areas of Scotland which are very deeply concerned about this problem. In my own Division of Rutherglen, with three important towns, the Poor Law relief is now five times greater than it was a few years ago, and that is typical of many of the industrial areas throughout the land. I have here the figures of the total cost of unemployment in rates and Exchange contributions. In the year 1913, the expenditure from the rates was 8s. 2d., and the total £11,591,000, the Exchequer contribution being, approximately, £2,500,000. In 1920 the rate had increased from 8s. 2d. to 12s. 6d., and the total amount was £19,479,000, with again a contribution of £2,500,000 from the Exchequer. In 1923, the rate had increased in 10 years from Ss. 2d. to 22s. 11¾d., with a total of £37,237,000, the Exchequer contribution still remaining at, approximately, £2,500,000.
We cannot realise the tragedy of the destitution among our people in the industrial areas, of the ruined homes, of
the young people who are growing up to manhood or womanhood without any special kind of training qualifying them to make useful citizens in the years to come, of the despairing old age. No words of mine can adequately describe the misery, wretchedness and despair of people who have made valuable contribution in the course of 40 or 50 years of their lives to the well-being of this country, and who are now destitute, in despair and are at their wits' ends to know what to do. You have evidence of that in the fact that, during the last 50 years, the returns, as supplied by the Registrar-General, are 100 per cent, higher than 50 years ago of people driven to suicide because of the despairing conditions under which they were living. We have the horrible condition prevailing of death actually due to starvation. There was an instance given this afternoon at Question Time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Trevelyan), who called attention to a case in Worcestershire of a man who was certified by the coroner to have died of starvation accelerated by exposure. Such cases are frequently happening in different parts of the country. I know of a similar case in Worcestershire only two months ago. Since the War, no official returns by the Government have been published as to the actual number of people who have died of starvation. According to the late General Booth, in his "Darkest England," there were in one year 300 people. In this country, the richest nation in the world, with an Empire greater than the world has ever seen, controlling one-fourth or one-fifth of the whole population, where the wealth during the last 20 or 30 years has increased by leaps and bounds, you have vast numbers of people who are driven to these conditions, and die from actual starvation in this land of plenty.
I want to raise a very determined protest against the continual starvation which is going on in this country. If the Government cannot alter it, they ought to have the decency and courage to resign, and say that they are incapable of dealing with it. That is not the only aspect of the question. There is the tyranny that is going on against the people who are employed. We are constantly being advised to promote feel-
ings of good will, good fellowship and good relationship. I agree we ought, but what is going on in the industrial world just now? I have some instances in my own district quite recently, where girls are being dismissed from a laundry by gross tyranny, some actually having been insulted. They are being thrown on the unemployed market. Their domestic circle is deprived of the income they would bring in. Yet we are being appealed to to promote feelings of good will. How is it possible, when girls are anxious to organise themselves into a trade union movement, that they are threatened with instant dismissal if they take any steps at all? We have seen those things in our own industries in days gone by. We have fought strenuously to overcome them. I hope steps will be taken at no distant date to remedy this kind of evil. I agree that it is possible, even under a capitalist system of society, to do far more than has been done.
It is perfectly obvious to any hon. Member who travels on the railways that there are millions of acres of land under water after a few days' rain. The value of the land deteriorates seriously. I have no doubt at all that it is possible to produce the food supplies which we require, apart from tropical products, in this land, without difficulty. I have often said so and I repeat it. I make no exception even in the case of wheat, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) made reference to a few weeks ago. We spent last year over £500,000,000 on importing foodstuffs from a-broad, every bit of which could be grown in this country. We are spending £17,000,000 a year on eggs brought from distant parts of the world. We are spending £30,000,000 on bacon and food products which could be produced here. What is the good of deceiving ourselves? The Government that cannot deal effectively with the social and industrial problems are not worth their salt. Here is a communication which has been sent to me within the last few days from the "Builders Merchants' Journal." We are importing foreign bricks, which have risen from a total of less than £18,000 in 1923 to more than £450,000 in 1925. Foreign tiles have increased from £93,000 in 1923 to nearly £430,000 least year. Foreign cement imported advanced from £305,000
in 1923 to £540,000 in 1925. Foreign slates imported amounted to only £1,000 for the whole of 1900, and during the last quarter of 1925 their value had risen to£85,000.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question. Would he prevent those importations coming into this country?

Mr. WRIGHT: surely it is perfectly obvious that vast numbers of men are unemployed in stone quarries and brick yards and that it would be possible to produce the goods here. We are importing vast quantities of stones from quarries abroad to make the roadways of this country. It shows the utmost possible incompetence so far as the Government are concerned in regard to all these problems. I want to appeal, finally, in particular on behalf of the people in my own division. There is scarcely a division in the whole land which has suffered more severely than some of the divisions in the County of Lanark. I hope that we shall not appeal in vain on this occasion. Two years ago the present Prime Minister assured the House and the country, that he could not afford to continue unless he had sufficient power to deal with the unemployed problem. That was in 1923. Now he has a majority of over 200 behind him and, as far as I can see, we are no nearer a solution of this problem than we were when the Labour party first came here in increased numbers. I hope the country is aware of what is going on, and that when another General Elution takes place they will remember the interest taken by hon. Members opposite in this Debate to-day. It is to be hoped, in the interests of the nation, than we shall come hack not merely 150 strong but 350 strong and show them what to do.

Mr. SEXTON: My intention is to endeavour, if possible, to humanise the methods by which these matters which we have been discussing are considered by the Front Bench opposite. My experience with regard to the Minister of Labour is different from that of some hon. Members who have spoken to-night. Whenever I have had to deal with the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting a question on the Notice Paper, I put my case before him personally, and I have always received the greatest consideration and
attention. Some cases have been satisfactory, but in the majority of cases the cloven hoof appears, not of the Minister of Labour, but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in endeavouring to save his kaleidoscopic Budget, has compelled the Minister of Labour to act the villain of the piece. It is in the hope of piercing the weak points of the right hon. Gentleman's armour, if there are weak points, that I want to put some more humanity into the administration of these hidebound, red tape Regulations.
It is not in the public interest to allow a man to go without his benefit on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking employment. I have had to go three times a day begging for a job. I was not employed, but I was genuinely seeking employment. These men to-day are in exactly the same position. Morning, noon and night they apply for a job and very seldom get it, and because they do not get a job, even although they are applying for it, they are tabulated as not having qualified and as not genuinely seeking work. Among dockers this state of affairs is essentially hard. Take the case of another man who is only employed for half a day. That man's card is stamped, and the full amount is deducted from that half day's wages by the Ministry of Labour as part of his contribution towards National Insurance, The man may not work more than half a day per week, yet the card is stamped representing a full week. I do submit that a little more humane consideration should be brought into the administration of even hide-bound regulations.
May I give the case that has been put before the hon. Gentleman—and if I make use of a document which I have received from him I do it without any disrespect but only to show exactly how the case stands. This is the case of an ex-service man, a Mr. M. McCormack, of 33, Lang-tree Street, St. Helens. This man saw active service and in 1916 was sent back with a shattered left hand. He was certified fit for very, very light work. This question of light work for ex-service men seems a considerable one and a difficult one, when we consider that capable, able-bodied men with all their physical capabilities and intelligence find it very difficult to get work at the present time. If that be the case the man who has a shattered left hand finds it more difficult,
and because he cannot get suitable light work he cannot get benefit, on account of not "having been genuinely seeking employment." This man could not get employment with one of his hands practically gone. In desperation he tried to get employment again in the mines. He only worked three hours when he collapsed. Because he showed that genuine desire to do work which he could not do, the reward he gets is to be told that he has not worked sufficiently. He tried again to work at a mine not far from my house. The manager on seeing him said: "You are not fit for work." The reply was: "For God's sake, let me try." The manager said: "All right." The man stood it for two days, and then he collapsed again. The employer said: "It is no use, get away, you are no use here." It was then marked on the man's certificate that the employer had told him to go, and because he left his employment in that way he was disqualified from unemployment benefit. I put it to the hon. Gentleman and his colleague that in spite of all the difficulties of the ease they might give these questions a little more humane consideration in view of the men who are suffering to-day.

Mr. MacLAREN: I join with my colleagues in making a definite protest at the vacancies which appear on the benches opposite. I think it is a standing disgrace, in view of the terrible problem of unemployment with which this country is confronted, to see what we do, and to see what interest is taken in this great question! I am not going to join in making an appeal to the Government in the hope that they may solve unemployment. I know they cannot. I will go further, and say that I challenge them to say that they dare—

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Dare what?

Mr. MacLAREN: Dare to solve the problem. Unemployment in this country will prevail so long as the opportunities that men must have before they can apply remedies are in the grip of monopoly. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, at least, some of them, are the born representatives of that historic monopoly which holds and controls millions of opportunities that men could use to-day if they had the chance rather than go, as they do
regularly, to the Employment Exchange. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in power with a superabundant majority behind them. Instead of being here to look at this matter seriously—if they genuinely feel the gravity of the case—they are absent. I only wish that the people of this country outside could have seen this House all the afternoon: then they would realise how serious are hon. Gentlemen opposite when this thing of national importance, which almost amounts to a national menace, was under discussion.
The only way to remedy unemployment is to open up these opportunities to which I have referred and allow men to employ themselves. That solution would, of necessity, make it incumbent upon any Government in power to challenge the historic vested interests in this country of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have adopted the policy of trying to cope with unemployment by bureaucratic and Governmental control. We have set up a Ministry of Labour—which is a bureaucratic tampering with unemployment. Never at any time was I enthusiastic for setting up Government Departments to deal with unemployment. Robinson Crusoe had no employment exchange to go to, and I do not think he required one, but this civilised State of ours we have reached a state of mind in which we accept unemployment as an integral part of our modern civilisation and attempt to deal with it by Government Departments, employment exchanges, and so on. When we attempt to treat those social diseases which arise out of the artificial conditions of society created by vicious economic laws by setting up Government Departments, it is only in the nature of the case that we must have what is happening to-day, cold and callous treatment.
The main reason why I have intervened in this Debate is this. In my own Division, where we have in the employment exchanges perhaps as good a staff of men as it is possible to find in the country, we have been tabulating the number of jobs it is possible to offer to unemployed men. We have completed the machinery now, and in Stoke-on-Trent it is now possible for the officials in the employment exchange to calculate to a very fine point the number of jobs that men can have open to them in any given week. But what happens? I and other
members sit on a rota committee, and when men come in and we must ask them the proverbial conundrum, "Have you been looking for work?" We get the reply, "Yes," and then we immediately have to challenge a man's honesty to fired out if he has been, while all the time we know from the data in the hands of our officials whether there is a job for that man or not. God knows it is bad enough to have unemployment foisted on you by a vicious condition of society, but it is an incitement to a man who has got any manhood in him at all when he has to appear before a rota committee of his own fellow creatures and they put him through an examination which is a disgrace to his manhood, sapping his very manhood out of him by circumlocution and cross-examination, while all the time we have in our hands the knowledge that the man could not possibly get a job even though we sent him out to seek one. I ask the Minister, if it be possible, to eliminate this contemptible system of asking people whether they have been genuinely seeking work. Can we not use the Employment Exchanges to find out in each area exactly the number of jobs that are Open to men, and save these men from trudging the streets day after day in their hopeless quest? I understand—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that this suggestion was put forward by North Staffordshire, and that it has not been seriously entertained by the Ministry. If that be so, I say it is a scandal and a disgrace. If the machinery of Employment Exchanges could be used to ascertain exactly how many opportunities of work are open to men, they would be in a position to know whether men were genuinely wanting work or shirking it; they would be in a position to test men direct by offering them work; and it is a scandal and a disgrace that the Ministry should not take advantage of such machinery to obviate the necessity of constantly sending men—and women, too—to look for jobs. At my own rota committee I have seen men come before us who have walked their boots off, and we knew perfectly well that they could not get a job, but the committee had to comply with this nonsensical and farcical requirement of the Act and ask them whether they had been seeking work.
In Stoke-on-Trent we had a great sewerage scheme which we hoped would absorb a good number of unemployed men. The scheme was going through, but we were held up, as we usually are held up, by the high prices the landowners demanded for their land. While we were thus hung up, a Circular was issued by the Government to say that we must cut down expenditure; and here we have the anomaly that though public works are being cut down, and there are only a given number of jobs in the factories, we continue to persecute these unfortunate unemployed people by asking them, "Have you looked for a job?"
If it be any consolation to the Ministry I would like to tell them that very serious trouble might have arisen in Stoke-on-Trent owing to the depression in the coal mines, and to the pottery industry working only three or four days a week. There were all the makings of trouble, but we have been lucky enough to get a big rubber company to come over from France to establish works there which, we are told, will absorb 10,000 people.
Had it not been for that lucky accident, God knows what might have been happening in Stoke at this time. The people were gathering in the streets, and were coming to my office in Burslem to show me where they had gone to get signatures from foremen and from managers to whom they bad applied for work. And even after that they were impeached when they went before the rota committee by some of the rather crustacean species who sit upon those committees and who said the men were not looking for work. Surely it is not beyond human intelligence to devise through our Employment Exchanges some system of finding out the amount of employment in an area, and thus save these people from trudging the streets. I have just been told that, it would not servo the ends of the present Government to pursue that policy, because if it were carried out in every area we should soon discover the amount of unabsorbable labour floating through the country, and the one thing the present Government do not want is to see that stated in black and white. However, I make the suggestion for what it is worth, and hope that, despite my strident criticisms, the Minister will devise some machinery to
avoid the present system, which is brutalising and insulting to the people who are suffering under it.

Mr. T. SHAW: We all ought to sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary for a double reason. The first is that the Minister who is responsible is now engaged on very important work, which, incidentally, I think it would have been much better if he had been engaged upon it 15 months ago. My second reason is, that no Member opposite has risen even to attempt to defend the right hon. Gentleman's policy. I know one hon. Member opposite used an argument, which was really an insult, because he said the Minister of Labour is suffering not for his own misdeeds but because of an Act of Parliament passed by the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Preston in 1924. In other words, the Ministry is such an invertebrate jellyfish that it must go on suffering because someone put into an Act of Parliament something which the present Ministry is incapable of getting round or dealing with. That is the only argument which has been used, and it is one of the most wicked insults that could be offered to the Minister.
To-day we have had a very comprehensive discussion conducted without recrimination. The Debate began by a criticism of one part of the administration dealing with trade boards and two trade boards were specially mentioned, one dealing with the grocery trade and the other with the catering trade. Really I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance to deal with those two trades, because we are bound by a sacred treaty to take care that the working conditions of this country should be made better than they were before the War. The Treaty of Versailles in the Labour Charter lays a definite obligation on the Government, and why the Government should not act and act quickly in any trade where it can be proved that the wages paid do not give a bare means of subsistence is beyond my comprehension. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this question of trade boards, and wherever his powers can be used I hope he will set up trade boards wherever it is proved that the people are working for less wages than will give them decent subsistence.
10.0 P.M.
Of all the people in this country who have been badly treated by our unemployment proposals the women have suffered the most. In all the palliative schemes which have been adopted for the relief of unemployment the women have had neither part nor lot. Hundreds of thousands of men have got sonic employment on account of the schemes which have been adopted, but the women have been left almost completely out of them. I know the difficulties of the Ministry in regard to this matter, and it is a tremendously difficult task to find schemes that will employ women, and the trades that would find them work are so small that I cannot understand why the Minister has cut down this provision at all. In this respect the so-called economy is so small and so unjust that I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter.
Another matter in which I am dissatisfied with the inactivity of the Minister is the question of dealing with young persons. Nobody knows how many young persons in this country are out of work. When I was Minister of Labour I did try to adopt a method that would have given us some idea, but I was met with opposition from all quarters of the House, from educationists who though, that my methods would injure the children, and not a single one of those who opposed my proposal has since moved to help to get this information, and not one of those who used that criticism at that time has ever attempted in a-1y way to help these children since.
The result is that to-day we do not know how many thousands of them are unemployed, because that is a matter of which we have no record. Just at the age when a Government ought to assist them we have no record of this kind, and with the exception of a few committees, which are rendering yeoman service for which we ought to be grateful, apparently there is nobody who will take these young persons in hand. I hole the Minister will be able to do something in regard to these young persons. I hope that in the administration of the Insurance Act everything will be done for the persons whose claims are disallowed, and we should see that no obstacles are placed in their way. On the contrary, we should help them to get their cases dealt with in the most judicial way. If they have a claim to
make, or if they have a grievance, it ought to be examined by an unbiassed person. There has sprung up in the administration in this respect an extraordinary state of affairs. You have a committee to deal with these cases, and the decisions of that committee are constantly overridden by the Ministry. That is a most sinister departure and there is no parallel to it. That is a development which ought to be checked quickly, and a mach more sympathetic administration adopted.
Then we have that extraordinary circular advising that benefits should be disallowed on the Minister's recommendation if there is between 10s. and 13s. per head going into the house. The average would be about 1s. 3½. per day, but I put it at the maximum of 1s. 10½. per day. That is for all purposes, including fuel, lighting, clothing, washing and everything else. What a liberal sum that is! After all, working people have a right not merely to bare food and clothing, but to some form of enjoyment and 1s. 10½d. a day would not be sufficient to purchase a good cigar or pay even for a day's washing of many hon. Members of this House. If these poor people have this 1s. 10½d. a day for all purposes then their benefits must be refused. We are, I suppose, said to be a Christian country, but, if Christianity consists in sending out circulars like this, I am beginning to have my doubts about the solidity of our beliefs.
Then we had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), who talked about not recriminating, and about the three Leaders getting together to find a settle-meet. That would be a most excellent method of passing the time, but what hope is there, after the policy of the Government during the last few months, that anything would arise out of that discussion unless there was a radical change of heart on the part of the Government? Even since this Government came into office, it has quite consistently and regularly done what it could, not to decrease unemployment, but to make the figures look less. An example taken from an answer given by the Minister himself will show exactly what the figures are worth. He said, in answer to a question, that, during the quarter ending last November, there had been—I am giving the figures
from memory, and the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—disallowances in, I think, about 175,000 cases. Not more than 74,000 of those people continued to register, and there is no proof that work was found for a single one of the other 101,000, but they all went off the register.
The figures as at present given are absolutely valueless. They do not represent the number of unemployed in this country. Nobody knows how many unemployed people we, have. We know that there are well over a million on the live register, but we do not know how many there are in addition. Let me take some figures that have been given without the administration or the different Regulations of the Ministry of Labour entering into the calculation at all. In 1924, the trade unions that make returns to the Ministry of Labour returned 8.1 per cent. unemployed. In 1925 they returned 10.5 per cent., and for 1926, up to date, 10.6 per cent. These figures, in my opinion, are more accurate than those given by the Department, which everyone, including; the Department, knows do not represent the number of unemployed people in this country. I am willing to admit, because I have no desire to make a wrong use of the figures, that it may be possible that the trade unions who make returns may have for the moment an exceptional spell of unemployment, but, even taking that into account, I think that unquestionably the balance of evidence is that there are more unemployed to-day than there were at this date two years ago.

Captain O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the considerable shrinkage in the membership of the trade unions making returns?

Mr. SHAW: If that be the case, it does not at all alter the percentage, and the people who leave are those who have more unemployment than those who stay in. I do not think, therefore, that there is much to be gained from that. In view of the answer of the Minister, that 175,000 were refused benefit, and 101,000 of those ceased to register and disappeared from the list altogether, although there is no proof that a single one of them got, employment, I think it will be found that what I have stated is the, fact, and the House wants to know the facts. I am a great optimist in regard to human
nature, and I believe that these matters are not attended to simply because we do not understand each other and cannot get to grips with each other. I am sure that if Members of the House were asked individually whether they consider 1s. 8½d. a reasonable amount for a person to live upon, every one of them individually would say, "No"; but they come and vote for a Government which has issued a Circular in favour of making 1s. 8½d. a day the standard. It is a matter of trying to get nearer into the hearts of each other than we have up to the present.
Then we have the question of "not genuinely seeking work," about which I want to say a few plain words. When the 1924 bill became an Act, this and other Clauses were put in to give a guarantee to the country that the new benefits given would not be abused, and with the understanding, on the part of the Minister who passed it, that the administration would be reasonable. The advantages of the Act have been taken away, but, where the Government see an opportunity of using anything in it by which they can screw people out of the list, they allow that to stay in. That is the extraordinary position that exists now. The Minister of Labour to-day could quickly and without any difficulty get over this intolerable difficulty and injustice to thousands of people in the country to-day. Think of it: A man is refused benefit on the allegation that he is not genuinely seeking work. He produces proof that he has been to different firms, and the Exchange officials know that there are thousands of people out of work and that there are no jobs in the town, but yet this man is turned out of benefit. If the Minister wanted to change that state of things, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman now applying that condition to standard benefit? Does not the condition as to genuinely seeking work apply to extended benefit only?

Mr. SHAW: I apply it to either standard or extended benefit. If an injustice is being done, the Minister of Labour can remedy that injustice, and there is nothing to prevent him. It is rather a paltry excuse, and it is a little
mean, to get out of your own crimes by pretending that the other person is the criminal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rabbits!"] The original and sparkling character of that remark is really worthy of the hon. Gentleman; it shows to what a. fine point his wit has developed. I say, with every desire to speak quite calmly, that it is the greatest humbug in the world to refuse a man benefit on the allegation that he is not genuinely seeking work, when at the same time he has produced evidence that he has been seeking work, and the officials know that there is no work in the town and that there are thousands of people out of work. It is not only humbug; it is dishonest. I can apply no less word to it. It is deliberately defrauding the man of rights that he ought to possess.
Now let me turn to matters of policy. It appears that the Minister is making no attempt at all to survey the position of industry and to suggest a remedy to his colleagues. There is no evidence whatever that he is taking any steps to make any suggestions at all. Take the question of agriculture. Only a few days ago I was in a small town in the heart of Kent, and walking clown the High Street, in almost every shop one saw Danish produce displayed. Why? [An HON. MEMBER: "They cannot get labour!"] Really, I think the hon. Member knows that is rather weak. I will continue my argument, and then he will see my point. What is the Minister doing to call the attention of his colleagues in the Cabinet to the fact that Denmark has worse land than ours, that her transport difficulties a-re infinitely greater, and yet she is a prosperous agricultural country? Her people are not badly fed. They are not badly paid. [An Hon. MEMBER: "How many hours do they work?]. I think it is fairly safe to say the Danish worker does not work longer hours than ours work. He is as highly educated as our men, he is more comfortable than our men, and he is a freer man than our men are. [An Hon. MEMBER: "And he has Protection!"] I have heard about King Charles's head, and Mr. Dick was not a particularly intelligent gentleman. These men have got this result by certain very simple things. [An HON. MEMBER "Protection!"] Really, I do not mind interjections that show some knowledge of the
subject, but when I keep hearing about Protection in connection with the Danish agricultural industry I must draw the line. There are some very simple things in Denmark. The most important of all is that the farmers co-operate amongst themselves in order to get the best results. The Danish farmer is not a better man than our farmer. It is extremely questionable whether he knows any more about farming. But he has applied organised commonsense. The Danish farmers do not work every man for his own little hand. They act together, buy together, manufacture together, and sell together, with the result that Denmark is a prosperous agricultural country. Why does not the Minister of Labour, seeing these things, advise his colleagues to deal with the farmers, ask them to help themselves, and give them liberal credits if they are prepared to form these societies in order to put agriculture on a better footing?
Industry, it seems to me, is shifting. We are not in the position that we were as a, manufacturing nation 50 years ago. There will have to be a change in industry, and there will have to be more men employed on our land, and it would be a very good thing if the Minister of Labour would use his powers of persuasion with his colleagues in the Cabinet in order to get a move on in this respect. I have heard what he has said, and not a single idea can I get from him as to what he is prepared to do. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be —that is the argument we get from him. Then there is no question at all of the possibility of speeding up afforestation. Surely, any wise nation that had a lumber of its people unemployed, and had things that, needed doing, would get them done.

Commander FANSHAWE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what his proposals are for getting people back on to the land?

Mr. SHAW: I have just told you—agricultural co-operation, with credits. I was saying that a wise nation that needed things doing to make itself richer and more efficient, would do whatever it could to use its money in order to get that result. Instead of that policy being followed, we have a policy that is going
the other way. The efforts that were made to palliate the position are being dropped one by one, and the only positive action that emerges from the Minister of Labour's policy is that of getting people off benefits and not getting them into work. That is the policy that we see adopted at the present time.
There is a complaint of the unemployed workers which is thoroughly justified. We bear a crushing burden of taxation owing to the War. We pay nearly £1,000,000 a day interest on borrowed money. That is sacrosanct. No man must touch the ark of the covenant. You can touch the benefits of the poor people, you can make them suffer more and more, but mammon must still be enthroned. There has never been a suggestion from the Minister of Labour that he was going to say to his colleagues, "Here is a burden of over £300,000,000 a year, some of which must be lifted in order to give our people a chance of living." Oh, no! You can take unemployment benefit from the poor, but you must not touch the fringe of the garment of the God of mammon. That is the position of affairs. That is the position that is being seen more and more by the working men of this country.

The CHAIRMAN: This would require, legislation. It is not competent for the Minister of Labour to deal with that.

Mr. SHAW: I am recommending the Minister to take certain action, and we are moving the reduction of his salary because he has not taken action. We are moving a reduction of his salary because we see no policy which is dealing with the most serious problem of our time. I am trying to make suggestions to him that would help him to get out of the difficulty next year. We do not want to move a reduction c Ins salary every year.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the interest on the National Debt should be reduced. That is not in the power either of the Minister of Labour or even of the Government, without legislation. We are now in Committe of Supply, and legislation cannot, be discussed.

Captain O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. Are the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in order in examining picture postcards while he is speaking?

The CHAIRMAN: I have sufficient to do in maintaining the Rules of Debate without inquiring into hon. Members' occupations.

Mr. SHAW: I am going to deal with what the Minister stated in the last Debate on this subject was his policy. He said that his policy was to develop markets and to get people work in a normal way. I ask him how has he applied that policy and what are the results? The three greatest potential markets in the world for us are India, China and Russia. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. I have an idea that India, China and Russia together have a very large proportion of the world's population. Not only are they tremendously important, potentially, as our customers but they are tremendously important potentially as our friends or enemies. From China and India we have not seen any good results from the policy enunciated by the Minister, and we would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what has been done since the last Motion of this kind in order, if one may use a slang term, to "deliver the goods." Where are the results? Take China. There was in China a riot at a Japanese factory. The Government have so managed things that the emnity of the Chinese has been diverted towards us, whereas in the first place the dispute took place at a Japanese factory.
As far as Russia is concerned, we have had that topic raised so often that even I am getting tired of it.. It is so evident. Any Government that does not see the wisdom of making friends with the Russian people and does not try to develop that potential market is perfectly hopeless; and the less said about the matter the better. A large proportion of unemployment is directly due to the War, and I am only going to point to the promises made to the working man as they are laid down in the Treaty of Peace definitely. And none have been kept. The Minister has no remedy. He is no further ahead than his predecessors of 40 years ago. May I give the House what was said 30 or 40 years ago, and by well-known politicians, and then ask the Minister of Labour if he has learned anything or if his party have learned anything. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said that there were over 10,000,000 people in this country always on the verge of destitution. [Interruption.]
I know it is a funny subject to some hon. Members that people should be on the verge of destitution. When I was in the mill I worked next to one of the finest men in the world, a man who never lost a minute. I went home one week and found that owing to unemployment and sickness he had thrown himself in front of a train and committed suicide. Destitution is not a thing for laughter. I do not want to say any more on that subject because if I did I shall probably say things I may regret afterwards. That is the position. As far back as 40 years ago you had the same state of things. The, present Government have no remedy. You cannot propose a remedy. Sneers will not help you. [Interruption.] Interjections that are at all intelligent can be dealt with. The Marquis of Salisbury, a well-known Tory of years ago, made exactly the same kind of speech when calling attention to the millions of people in our country who were on the verge of destitution. He said:
It was time they stopped trying to mend the constitution of Parliament and turned all the wisdom and energy of Parliament in order to remedy the sufferings under which w many of their countrymen lived.
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said this:
For my part, neither sneers nor abuse "—
and he had both from the Tories of his day—
nor opposition shall induce me to accept as the will of the Almighty and the unalterable dispensation of His providence a state of things under which millions will be condemned to a sordid, hopeless and monotonous life without pleasure in the present and without prospect for the future.
These things ace as true to-day as they were then, and you stand hopeless in face of the problem, without remedy, without hope without programme, without policy. And because you are in that condition we are moving a reduction in the salary of the Minister in order to know whether you have any method what- ever for dealing with the problem.

Mr. BETTERTON: I appreciate the kindly references of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. But I cannot help expressing regret that this Debate was fixed, by those who arranged it, to take place to-night, when it must have been obvious
that in my right hon. Friend's unavoidable absence the Debate would necessarily lose much of its interest. It has been a Debate which, of all the long debates on this subject to which I have listened, has been freer from recrimination than any in which I have taken part. I say frankly, that some of the suggestions which have been made are suggestions which are very well worth consideration, and. they will be considered. The obvious desire of many, indeed, of almost all—I do not want to discriminate—of the speakers, has been to contribute something to a solution of the difficulties with which we are faced. There has also been a greater realisation of the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, and a snore genuine desire to appreciate what those difficulties are than I have ever noticed in such a discussion before.
As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, in a Debate of this kind it is almost impossible, in the course of a reply, however adequate one attempts to make it, to deal with all the points that have been raised, some of them points of great detail on questions of administration, and at the same time to deal with the larger questions of policy such as those which have been raised by the last speaker. As the Committee Knows, speaking broadly, the view of the Government is that; work deliberately created merely for the purpose of putting people to work is nicer likely to do harm than good.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the making of arterial roads is work created merely for the purpose of putting people to work?

Mr. BETTERTON: The development of arterial roads is going on, and it is a very good thing that it should go on, and hope it will go on. But, speaking broadly, it does not help in the long run to take money from the normal courses of trade and to create work merely for the purpose of creating it. Therefore, speaking again broadly, in reply to the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), the policy of this Government is to keep up the credit of this country, and to encourage the normal trade of this country by every possible means. If I needed it, I could quote in aid the words of the right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Government. No one has put the case better, and,
indeed, no one is capable of putting it better than he. I have before me the report of a speech which was made about a fortnight ago to the Dewsbury Chamber of Commerce:
If, however, any such saving were to be effected it was necessary that we should maintain at all costs the financial credit of the country. We had in view a huge conversion of debt in the next few years. If by some financial policy we could reduce the price of money so that these debts, or a considerable part of these debts, could be converted at a saving of even one-half per cent. interest, that would effect a saving of £30,000,000 a year to the taxpayer, while one per cent. would save us £60,000,000 a year. That could not be done unless the Budget was balanced.
It is in view of such a statement as that, with which I entirely agree, that we must consider all these schemes which have been suggested to-night. Speaking quite frankly for myself, I greatly regret it has been necessary to cut some of them down, and one of these is the women's training course. I also regret that it has been necessary to cut clown, to some extent, the grant for the juvenile unemployment centres. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why has it been necessary?"] For the very reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) made a suggestion that we should call together a large conference of all the industries of the country and he said that proposal had already been made by his council to the Prime Minister. I think I may say that the view of the Prime Minister—certainly it is my own personal view—is that until each industry has composed its own difficulties or shown that all the parties within the industry are at one, the, calling of a large general conference embracing all industries would be likely to do more harm than good.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I made a further suggestion. I pointed out that my council made the suggestion mentioned, to the Prime Minister, and that it was turned down by the Prime Minister, Then I went on to suggest that a non-party committee of Members of this House should be set up, and I appealed to the hon. Gentleman to take a lead in that matter and see if it would not lead to anything.

Mr. BETTERTON: If that suggestion has not already been brought before my right hon. Friend, I will certainly bring
it before him. With regard to criticisms on the administration of my right hon. Friend, I must, of course, say something, because the greater part of this Debate, naturally and properly enough, has been directed to points of administration. I confess I did not understand the reference of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston to a supposed insult which he said had been uttered by a supporter of the Government. He apparently thought that was to be regarded as an insult that we should feel ourselves bound to administer an Act which he himself passed and which is still in force. Of course, we are bound by that Act so long as it is law. It is true that Act has presented many difficulties of administration. Some of the phrases that have been so much canvassed to-day are, I frankly admit, very difficult of interpretation, and I believe some of the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the state of affairs which prevails to-day. That Act, however, is in force and so long as it is in force it is the duty of my right hon. Friend to administer it. My right hon. Friend, feeling, as I do, that these difficulties exist, has, as the Committee knows, appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Bledisloe, to advise him as to how these difficulties can best be met, but as the matter stands now that is the Act in force, and that is the Act which we have to administer.
There has been a good deal of confusion—and, indeed, when I look at this volume of Acts which I am supposed to know from A to Z I am not surprised that that confusion exists in the mind of anybody as to what all these Acts contain—in all parts of the House as to what are the powers of my right. hon. Friend under the legislation now in force. It has been assumed in many speeches that my right hon. Friend is a sort of super-relieving officer, who, without regard to Regulations, except those that he made himself, can dispense benefit as he likes, and that, under the exercise of his discretion, he can give benefit where now it is withheld. Really, nothing is further from the truth, because, as the right hon. Member for Preston must know, my right hon. Friend is bound to see to it, not that the Regulations only, but the statutory 'provisions laid down in that Act, are
observed, and he has no right and no power to give benefits here or there unless he is satisfied that those provisions are fulfilled. Let us see what machinery he adopts in order to satisfy himself on this fundamental and important fact. The machinery which he has is exactly the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman had.
First of all, the standard benefit cases, in the rules relating to which that phrase that has been so much canvassed to-day, "genuinely seeking employment," occurs, comes under the machinery set up in previous Acts, and if there is a dispute about them there is a reference to a Court of Referees and, in certain cases, to the Umpire. It is idle to say that any action of my right hon. Friend or that any what is pleased to be called more sympathetic administration can alter the fact that he is bound by the words in the Act, and that the authority for construing them is already provided in the Act, namely, the Court of Referees and the Umpire.
Now let me say a word about a totally different class of cases, namely, those of extended benefit. Since I have had anything to do with this most difficult work, I have always been more impressed by this than by anything else, and that is the enormous amount of work, very thankless, very difficult, and very persistent and consistent, which is put in by those who serve on the local committees. It has always struck me that their serving on them is a display of what I may call local patriotism of the very highest order, and, therefore, I do pay my humble tribute to the work which they do. What has been the criticism to-clay 1 There has been no criticism, I think, or, if there has, it has been so negligible that I have missed it, as to the way in which at any rate they try to do their duty. What is the nature of the criticism? some hon. Members have said, "Why do you not always accept the findings of the committees, because you set up these committees, who know local conditions, and who are composed of employers and employed?" Other critics say, "Why do you accept the findings of these committees when such findings inflict hardship on deserving people?" What my right hon. Friend does is the only thing that any person charged with the administration of this
Act can do. Speaking broadly, and as a general rule, he accepts the findings of these committees, unless it is clear that these findings are inconsistent with the legal obligations under the Act.

Mr. CLYNES: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to put a question on this matter, as he is pursuing it at such length? Is he not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on Tuesday in support of the Economy Bill, adduced the argument that less money was being spent on unemployment benefit by a stricter administration?

Mr. BETTERTON: On Tuesday, I was engaged in the Hours Conference, and therefore the answer is in the negative.

Mr. TINKER: What about keeping to the strictly legal definition when he non-suited the rota committee's finding?

Mr. BETTERTON: Last year there were something like 1,600,000 cases brought before the rota, committees. The number in which my right hon. Friend disagreed with the findings of the rota committees was just over 8,000, or less than one-half of 7 per cent. Therefore, he does, as he is bound to do, accept in the overwhelming majority of cases the findings of those committees. If he did not, quite obviously you could not expect any gentleman to go on serving, and if the committee system breaks down, I leave it to hon. Gentlemen who take so much interest, as we all do, in the administration of this Act, to consider what you are going to put in their place. I do not know of any body or authority you can put in their place, unless you are prepared to give to officials of the Ministry the powers which are now exercised by the rota committees.

Mr. MONTAGUE: What about work or benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion referred to a matt2r about which, I am sure, he will expect me to say something. He criticised the action of my right hon. Friend with regard to trade boards, and he said that sweating existed in this trade and that trade, and that it was very monstrous we should refuse to set up trade boards in those cases. The policy of the Government has been stated in the clearest possible words by my right hon. Friend,
in answer to a question in December last. It is a very long answer, and I will only read the first line, which was that
The Government adhere to the principle that the grave evil of sweating must be prevented.
Arid he is determined that the grave evil of sweating shall he prevented, so far as it rests with him. He found when he came into office that there were three inquiries on foot—I think instituted by the right hon. Gentleman—on the meat distributing trade, the drapery and allied trades, and the catering trade. In addition to those, he himself instituted an inquiry into the grocery trade. He has received the Report of the Inquiry, and he said in answer to a question:
The result of the investigation is being considered in the light of the statement of the Government's policy with regard to trade boards which I made when I took office.
Then, he says, he has decided that, in all the circumstances, the conditions that exist do not justify at the present time the application of the Act. I was very sorry for the hon. Gentlemen who desired to raise this question that the reports were not in their hands before this date. I warn them, however, that I am not at all sure that these reports, which they have not yet seen, will be quite so favourable to the contention which they are so anxious to make. Of course we know the Ministry of Labour Estimates come up about once a week, and they will have ample opportunity between now and the time when the Guillotine falls to raise this or any other questions which have been raised on more than one occasion.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the divisions of Leeds raised a point which is one of very considerable complexity, and it arises on one of the Acts to which I have referred, the Act of 1920. It was a criticism by him that, where misconduct was alleged, the man against whom it was alleged should have the charge properly communicated to him and further inquiry made. I am told that in such cases the employer's reply is always communicated to the claimant, who thus has an opportunity of stating his case before the insurance officers, and, if there is any conflict of statement further inquiry is made. So, in answer to a specific request or criticism that further inquiry should be made in such cases, I should like to assure the hon.
Member, if he were here, that such inquiry is already made.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spec Valley (Sir J. Simon) raised the point with regard to that very technical question known as the 30 contributions rule. Under the exercise of the waiver, the power which my right hon. Friend has, he has substituted for the 30 contributions within two insurance years which was provided by the Act of 1922, 30 contributions at any time or eight contributions within the last two insurance years. We are charged with administering this Act in a harsh, hard-hearted and unsympathetic manner, but it may have escaped the memory of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that one of the very first things we did was to relax the rules made by him which, if carried out, would have put something between 200,000 and 250,000 persons out of benefit.
Under the Act of 1925 the rule laying down the necessity for producing 30 contributions as a condition precedent to benefit, was replaced by that to which I have referred. If the matter had remained where it was then indeed we should have found that at least 200,000

persons would have been put off benefit. Just one reference to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman both to-day and the other day. His argument, in which he gave certain figures which I am quoting from memory, was to the effect: "Here you have 175,000 persons who have been rejected during a. certain period, and only 74,000 have continued to register, and therefore 100,00 persons have disappeared from the register during a stated time." The first comment I would make upon that is this, that these were not persons; they were claims. In the total number of 100,000, claims may be made two or three times by the same person. You are really, therefore, not dealing with persons but the number of claims, which is a totally different thing. The second observation I would make is that some of these people may become sick, others may have found work, and some may go into uninsurable occupations. To suggest that this large number of people have simply remained out of work is a suggestion I can not accept.

Question put, "That Item Class VII, Vote 3 (Ministry of Labour), be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 195.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Han. Sir John


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. St. Rolfox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Taylor R. A


Cluse, W. S
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Clynes Rt. Hon. John R.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly. M.
Mackinder, w.
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davison. J. E. (Smethwick)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Duncan, C.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dunnico, H.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Paling, W.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gibbins, Joseph
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor. Walter


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Gosling, Harry
Pureed, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards,


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Nuttall, Ellis


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C, M.S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perring, Sir William George


Apsley, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Philipson, Mabel


Atkinson, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanbury, C.
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Harland, A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remer, J. R,


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bethel, A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Henry B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. skipton)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hennessy, Major J, R. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brittain, Sir Harry
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sandon, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newby)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sheffield, sir Berkeley


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hudson, R. s. (Cumborl'nd, Whlteh'n)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Campbell, E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Cassels, J. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Cot. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Christie, J. A.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Storry-Deans, R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V,
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Looker, Herbert William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Lougher, L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Croft, Brigadier-General sir H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Macintyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, J.(Hertf"d, Hemel Hempst'd)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, F. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Falls, Sir Bertram G,
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Withers, John James


Fanshawe, Commander G. D,
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wolmer, Viscount


Femoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W, J.


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Finburgh, S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forrest, W.
Neville, R. J.
Captain viscount Curzon and Lord


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley.


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Original Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith time Question necessary to dispose of the Vote.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of Mara, 1925, the sum of £387,204 9s. 7d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, the sum of £5,269,474 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, the sum of £174,047,500 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. R. McNeill.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES FUND ENDOWMENT BILL.

Major Broun-Lindsay, Captain Ernest Evans, Major Hills, Mr. Lawson, and Major-General Sir Newton Moore nominated Members of the Select Com-
mittee on the Imperial War Graves Fund Endowment Bill."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn. "—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.